Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

67.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Collins, Hobley and Nelson.

68.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

16/01909/FUL 53 Beeches Road

Councillor McCloskey – is a close neighbour of the only objector.  Will leave the Chamber.

Councillor Lillywhite – is a friend of the only objector.  Will leave the Chamber.

 

16/01577/FUL 83 Hewlett Road

Councillor Savage – is a resident of Hewlett Road.  Will leave the Chamber.

 

69.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Sudbury as visited 83 Hewlett Road previously, and has spoken to residents at Sandford Court. 

 

Other members viewed all sites on Tuesday 13th December. 

 

70.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

71.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 215 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17th November 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

72.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications, Applications for Lawful Development Certificate and Tree related applications

73.

16/00383/FUL Lilley Brook Golf Club, 313 Cirencester Road pdf icon PDF 387 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00383/FUL

Location:

Lilley Brook Golf Club, 313 Cirencester Road

Proposal:

Engineering works to re-profile and re-contour the existing practice facility to create a mini 9-hole golf course by importing 100,000 cubic metres of inert fill material

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

29

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, a 5.35 hectare parcel of land in the AONB, on the western edge of the golf course, adjacent to Sandy Lane and including access through the site via Cirencester Road.  Having scrutinised a number of matters, including the AONB, ecology and biodiversity, trees and landscaping, archaeology, flood risk, and highway safety, officers consider that the application should be refused on two grounds:  firstly, the lack of information relating the archaeological remains on the site, and secondly the absence of a legal agreement to secure completion of the works.  The application is at Planning Committee at the requests of Councillors Baker and Smith, due to concerns from local residents, and also as a result of an objection from the Parish Council.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Matthew Kendrick, agent, in support

This application is a re-submission of the previously withdrawn proposal, which raised concerns about drainage and traffic – access was via residential area of Sandy Lane.  Was engaged to look at the proposal and suggest an alternative route using the A-road, and has been discussing the drainage issue with planning officers since March.  There is now a tangible change in what is being proposed. The drainage scheme has an over-engineered capacity – 40% above what is required - and  run-off  will be drastically reduced. The 9-hole course will be well used, by juniors and beginners, providing them with a good introduction to the game.  The applicant is happy to carry out an archaeological survey – which will be expensive - once it has the reassurance that other issues are OK.  The officer recommendation is to refuse, but would request that the decision be deferred instead,  to allow archaeological works to be undertaken.

 

Member debate

SW:  has two main concerns.  The site is in the AONB; the report refers to inert material being brought int.  Is concerned about what type of material this will be – crushed concrete, old brick covered with top soil?  This isn’t what the AONB is made of, and it will have an effect on areas outside the gold course.  Would like to see material similar to what is there already.  Secondly, there have been no geological studies done.  Bringing in thousands of tons of material without knowing what is underneath is not advisable.  A proper study should be done.  The cost would not be outrageously expensive, and it would be invaluable to the application to get something of that nature done.  On the question of whether the application should be deferred or refused, do the officers consider that deferral would allow the applicant time to do all that is needed?

 

HM:  we don’t get this type of application very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

74.

16/01577/FUL 83 Hewlett Road pdf icon PDF 340 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Savage left the Chamber before the beginning of the next agenda item

 

 

Application Number:

16/01577/FUL

Location:

83 Hewlett Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Alterations and extensions to the building and conversion to provide 7 additional flats and ground floor retail unit

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

29

Update Report:

i.         Officer comments circulated by email on Tuesday evening

ii.       Memorandum of understanding between the Fairview Community Association and the developer

 

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that an application for 10 flats was refused earlier this year, on the grounds of over-development and loss of community asset.  Since then, the applicant has had discussions with the Fairview Community Association and reached a good compromise in this application, in line with policy requirements as outlined in the report.  The officer recommendation is therefore to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Colin Ballard, of Fairview Community Association, in support

Speaks as a representation of FCA, a growing group of local people who believe that national and local government policy give people a say in shaping their local environment.  The previous application was refused in February due to the loss of a valued local asset – the pub and associated function room – which would be detrimental to the Fairview Community. The FCA has subsequently worked with the developer to develop this space, which now includes a community facility.  During this time a Special Interest Group has emerged, independent of the FCA, with several proposals to use the space based on what the local community wants and can deliver.  The group is still working on its business plans, but initial ideas indicated that the community space will be part retail, part food, with an area for classes and a working hub.  The group needs stipulation that the space is for the local community rather than solely private or commercial activity, and has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the developer to demonstrate both parties’ commitment to this collaboration.  The delivery of a community facility is still at an early stage, but Members should consider these very positive achievements since February.  If the Special Interest Group is unable to proceed for any reason, the FCA will want the space to continue as a community facility and would work with appropriate partners to achieve this.  Consequently, the FCA supports this proposal.

 

Councillor Jordan, ward councillor

Attended Planning Committee in February and addressed Members with a number of concerns about the previous application on this site, primarily the loss of the pub as a community space, in an area where very few such spaces exist; and secondly concerns about parking.  The building is empty and deteriorating and needs to be brought back into use.  Parking remains an issue for many residents, made worse by the County Council’s parking schemes in Pittville – he is assured that the County will look at this again in the new year.  The biggest issue, however, is the community space, and the developer has taken a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

16/01756/CONDIT Travis Perkins, Brook Road pdf icon PDF 252 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application Number:

16/01756/CONDIT

Location:

Travis Perkins Brook Road Cheltenham

 

DEFERRED

 

76.

16/01794/FUL 1 Sandford Court, Humphris Place pdf icon PDF 239 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

16/01794/FUL

Location:

1 Sandford Court, Humphris Place, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of two trellis fence panels adjacent to patio (retrospective)

View:

 

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

31

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, for the retention of two fence panels in these communal gardens. It is at committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury in view of a number of objections from neighbours. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Eddie Vickers, Thirlestaine Steering Group, in objection

Thanked Members for listening to the views of the great number of responsible owners who adhere to the leasehold and estate regulations and consequently object to this application.  Thirlestaine is a historic site, and its character and heritage should be maintained to a high degree as such, with any additions complementing the environment.  These should avoid unacceptable intrusion of the open spaces at ground level and loss of visual amenity which form an integral part of the development.  The fence panels reduce the intended design view and effectively close down the common garden area, creating an area for the private use of 1 Sandford Court, giving the impression of being exclusive and restricted.  Planning officers may consider that the trellis fencing doesn’t impinge significantly on the open space,  but owners are concerned that permission for this fencing will give a signal to other residents to erect similar fencing or structures which will impede access and encroach on the common open space.  The officer report considers whether this is a test case with regard to Estate Regulations, with wide repercussions in the future, though this is not a planning issue.  Residents therefore ask the Council to consider its duty of care to other owners by turning down this retrospective planning application.  Any structures within the curtilage of the Grade II listed building has to have planning permission, but these fence panels have been erected without regard to this, giving the impression of a private and exclusive garden, deterring people from entering and enjoying the open spaces. 

 

Mr Jonathan Porter, agent, in support

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, apologises for the retrospective nature of this application – the owner did not realise that planning permission was required, and is grateful for the opportunity to rectify this honest mistake.  The officer report sets out the case well.  Berkeley Homes gave permission for the fencing, and the estate managers have approved them.  The fencing is a trellis between two patios, and takes the place of a hedge which could have grown to a similar height.  It provides privacy in the short term.  It is in a discreet corner of the garden and doesn’t detract from the garden as a whole or impede movement.  The officer report states that it is difficult to quantify the level of loss or any significant harm to the neighbouring residents.  Supports the officer recommendation.  Regarding the concern about precedent, any future proposals would need planning permission and each would be judged on its own merits.  

 

 

Member debate:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

16/01909/FUL 53 Beeches Road pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Councillors McCloskey and Lillywhite left the Chamber before the beginning of the following agenda item

 

 

Application Number:

16/01909/FUL

Location:

53 Beeches Road, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Single storey side and rear extension - (Revised Scheme - part retrospective)

View:

 

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

CS introduced the application as above.  The property is a semi-detached bungalow, and the proposed works as given.  Works have already started on the previous proposal; the current application will have the same footprint as the previous.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey and because the Parish Council has objected. 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Robert Banbury, neighbour, in objection

Owns the two properties next door to the application site, and is objecting because the part-built extension will look ugly, overbearing and out of scale; it uses inappropriate materials and will spoil the street scene.  There is no need for it, as the property benefits from a valid permission granted in 2015.  Did not object to that scheme, which had a pitched roof and matching brickwork.  Beeches Road is a well-maintained and desirable place to live, with many extensions in keeping with the look of the street.  Conditions were attached to the previous application to ensure that this extension would also do so, but several of these conditions have been ignored, with concrete blockwork used and a flat roof built as if permission for these had been granted.  The applicants have continued with this regardless, because it is cheaper.  If they had changed their plans and resubmitted new drawings before starting the work, it could all have been done legitimately, but instead the process has been undermined, and the applicant has assumed this violation will be fixed with a retrospective planning permission.  This is not how planning permissions should work, seeking to legitimise unauthorised work. This extension will be out of keeping with Beeches Road, and therefore respectfully requests that it be refused. 

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  has huge sympathy with the view put forward by the speaker, but there are no planning grounds on which this application can be refused.

 

BF:  went on Planning View and saw the work done so far; the applicant has obviously decided to proceed at his own risk, which could be seen as foolish.  Feels that a pitched roof extension on a bungalow can be overbearing and a flat roof sometimes looks better – less of a mass of tiles.  The render may be overdone, but is good for insulation and more easily maintained.  The extension is of its time – a 21st century extension.  Will support the officer recommendation.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

78.

16/02012/FUL & LBC Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road pdf icon PDF 257 KB

Minutes:

 

 

           

 

Application Number:

16/02012/FUL and LBC

Location:

Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

16/02012/FUL: Part two storey, part single storey rear extension to form new dining room on the ground floor with extended kitchen over (revised scheme following refusal of planning permission ref. 16/00499/FUL)

16/02012/LBC:  Part two storey, part single storey rear extension to form new dining room on the ground floor with extended kitchen over together with internal refurbishment works and upgrading (revised scheme following refusal of listed building consent ref. 16/00499/LBC)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit / Grant

Committee Decision:

Permit / Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, a Grade II listed building in a conservation area.  Planning permission and listed building consent was refused by Members in July, following a previous deferral for further negotiations.  Officers are satisfied that all Members’ concerns have been met in this new application, and have brought the application to Committee at their own discretion to allow Members to vote on it.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None. 

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  is glad the previous application was refused – this is a lot better.  The Romeo and Juliet balcony has gone, as has the conservatory half way up the house.  All credit must go to officers who have worked hard to get something more acceptable. 

 

GB:  it is appropriate to acknowledge the officers’ professionalism on advice given in good faith.  Members’ concerns have resulted in the right outcome. 

 

CH:  doesn’t necessarily agree.  The previous application had more to offer residents.

 

GB:  this application is a compromise which suits everyone.

 

DS:  asked on Tuesday at Planning View about the glazing bars on the windows.   Are the diagrams as they will be?  They looked modern – more than four bars per window

 

MP, in response:

-       The plans are as shown on the Planning View bus – the proposal has not changed.

 

DS:  had asked previously that the windows be changed.

 

MP, in response:

-       Only one window has not changed – the casement.  More appropriate windows have been secured in some but not all cases.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 8.10pm.

 

79.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision