Cheltenham Borough Council
Cheltenham Borough Council

Hello, please sign in to your account. New customer? Creating a new account only takes moments.

find our main contact details and opening hours or find our location.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

101.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Hobley.

 

102.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/00135/FUL Priors Farm, Imjin Road

Councillors Wheeler, Sudbury, Colin Hay and Fisher – personal but not prejudicial if not involved in discussions at county level – all are county councillors and the County is the applicant.

 

Councillor Colin Hay confirmed that he is no longer a member of CBH board  - CBH has objected to this proposal.

 

16/02105/FUL Cotswold Grange Hotel

Councillor Lillywhite – as owner of a hotel which could be seen as a competing business – will leave the Chamber.

 

103.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Sudbury: Cotswold Grange Hotel, 68 Sandy Lane, and 3 Church Street

Councillor Baker:  Cotswold Grange Hotel, 68 Sandy Lane

Councillor Lillywhite:  68 Sandy Lane.

 

104.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

 

105.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Minutes:

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 16th February 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

106.

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

107.

16/02105/FUL Cotswold Grange Hotel, Pittville Circus Road pdf icon PDF 174 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/02105/FUL and 16/02105/ADV

Location:

Cotswold Grange Hotel, Pittville Circus Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

16/02105/FUL:  Proposed erection of gates and boundary railings, new landscaping scheme and car park reconfiguration.

 

16/02105/ADV:  Proposed illuminated box sign containing menu board

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit/Grant

Committee Decision:

Defer/Defer

Letters of Rep:

13

Update Report:

Officer Update

 

CS introduced the applications as above, for work on this locally indexed building, in the conservation area.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay in view of local residents’ concerns about noise, removal of rubbish, and access for commercial vehicles.  The application has been amended and officers consider these concerns have been overcome.  The recommendation is therefore to approve, subject to conditions.  There is an update, regarding tree-related matters

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  to the Trees Officer: he was originally very complimentary about the trees to the rear of the building – the cypress, holly and pine.  Why has he subsequently changed his view on their loss?

 

CH:  from the residents’ point of view, the main concern is regarding the location of the rubbish bins, and in particular the recycling of glass and the inherent noise this causes.  The plans have changed, and this will not be as open as it was going to be, but residents remain concerned.  If the bins are located here, the owners will probably undertake to only empty the bins during the day, but a condition cannot be included to ensure this happens – it will be a question of goodwill.  This is a small street; refuse is collected once a week for residents, but likely to be more frequent for a commercial property. 

 

CC, in response:

-       Visited the site twice; on the first occasion, liked the holly, pine and cypress trees, and had reservations about their removal;

-       Visited again with the case officer, met with the owner, and looked at the back of the site.  Put the case for the trees as strongly as possible, but the applicant was determined to change them for a different species – a maple;

-       The trees are all but invisible in the landscape, and therefore concluded that if the applicant is determined to have a maple, this would be OK.

 

CS, in response:

-       Regarding the bins, the applicant can store them in the proposed place without planning permission, but for the appearance of the area, this is a better scenario.  Members will have noted on site that the current bin storage is not much in the way and is quite small scale.  This is all set out in the report. 

 

PB:  is disappointed with the Trees Officer’s response.  He acknowledges that these are good trees, and the replacement is not really appropriate, but has still acquiesced with the applicant’s wishes.  At the back of the building, the existing trees add a lot to the landscape.  Can he move for a refusal on the loss of the trees, in the hope of the applicant coming up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

108.

16/02197/FUL 68 Sandy Lane, Charlton Kings pdf icon PDF 143 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/02197/FUL

Location:

68 Sandy Lane

Proposal:

Two-storey side exttension, single storey front and rear extension, application of render and timber cladding and replacements windows and doors

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

 

BH introduced the application as above, for the remodelling of this property.  It is at Committee in the interests of transparency, as the neighbour and only objector is a senior member of CBC staff.  The scheme has been revised in line with officer and neighbour concerns, and officers consider the form to be acceptable, with no adverse impact on the neighbouring property.  The recommendation is therefore to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Atkins, neighbour, in objection

Owns the only property to be directly affected by this proposal, and would ask Members to consider the officer’s use of design guidance when considering the application.  The proposed extension will be inconsistent with council policy on side extensions and Local Plan policies CP7 and CP4, suggesting that officers have not followed normal processes and  guidelines.  Have provided evidence of similar developments in Sandy Lane and other nearby sites, and reviewed over forty two-storey side extensions determined last year.  The vast majority required clear set-back and reduction in ridgeline height to comply with design guidance; each report emphasised the need to neither dominate or detract from the original building but to play a supporting role.  This requirement is not met at 68 Sandy Lane.  In addition, a gap of less than 2m would be maintained between the two buildings, further reduced by the projecting eaves.    The house and extension would occupy 88% of the site, a 21m two-storey structure of uniform height, width and massing on a 24m-wide corner site.  Consideration has not been given to the siting and design of the balcony, which will be close to the only bathrooms at No. 70, both of which have opening windows.  A person of average height standing on the balcony would be directly between both windows, and only 2m away.  In this quiet, residential area, bathroom and toilet noises will be clearly heard, and silhouettes of anyone using the bathroom clearly visible through the obscure glass, to the detriment of her family’s privacy and enjoyment of their house. This could easily be avoided through good design, and despite the addition of a small obscure glass screen, the proposed balcony remains in conflict with CP7 and CP4. Is keen to see a positive outcome and a more attractive with less impact on her family’s amenity.  Minor changes could significantly change the appearance of the extension when viewed against the parent house, allowing it to play a supporting role, and a more suitable location for the balcony would be the bedroom in the centre of the house.  Asks members to consider deferring their decision to seek such changes.

 

 

Councillor Harvey, in objection

Prefaced his comments on this application by apologising for trying to help Councillor Baker with refusal reasons on the previous application –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

109.

16/02302/FUL Land at Arle Court pdf icon PDF 573 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/02302/FUL

Location:

Land At Arle Court, Gloucester Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of Care Home with Nursing Care (60 beds) and Assisted Living (55 suites) - use class C2.  Restoration and management of woodland, and provision of car park.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to 106 Obligation

Letters of Rep:

15

Update Report:

i.       report update

ii.      Cheltenham Film Studios – supporting information

iii.     Additional representation – Reddings Residents Association

 

EP introduced the application as above, for an L-shaped building, three and four storeys high.  It is situated in a TPO’d woodland, and there has been significant negotiation with the Trees Officer, regarding the appropriate work to trees, including a number of removals.  A woodland management plan has been submitted; 71 parking spaces will be provided.  Officers consider the scheme complies with policy and is well thought through, and the recommendation is therefore to approve.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Paddy Brice, applicant, in support

Introduced himself to Members as the Managing Director, of Richmond Villages, part of BUPA.  This proposal started life about two years ago, with the landowner’s pre-app discussions with Cheltenham Borough Council.  The whole ethos of the scheme has always been landscape led, letting the woodland inform the proposals.  Input from officers, consultees, surrounding businesses and the public have been taken into account – for example, the footprint has been amended five times following discussions with officers, the planting and management plan has been improved, and the building will not be any higher than Manor by the Lake.   The woodland is known to be failing, and this proposal will preserve the best trees, enhance the wooded approach to Cheltenham from the A40, add approximately 300 new trees, as well as bird and bat boxes.  During discussions, it became clear that officers wanted a greater level of certainty, and suggested the landowner find an end user for the site.  Richmond BUPA was delighted to be selected to make a full planning application, and for the opportunity to provide a care environment which is a first for Cheltenham, covering a number of separate areas of care, including dementia care.  It will provide 111 jobs for Cheltenham people, and give certainty to the rest of the film studios site, which currently supports over 60 small businesses. The development will allow Richmond to continue its track record of regenerating the ecological and botanical value of its land interests, already established in villages at Letcombe near Oxford, Wood Norton near Evesham, and  Aston-on-Trent near Derby.  They will be extremely pleased to bring Richmond BUPA to this unique site in Cheltenham, helping people to live longer, happier and healthier lives. The work of CBC officers and the Richmond BUPA team has produced a development everyone can be proud of, and one most worthy of Members’ support. 

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  until a few days ago, thought he would have to declare and personal and prejudicial interest – was expecting to see an enormous building from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

110.

17/00087/FUL Atherstone, 17 Church Road pdf icon PDF 181 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00087/FUL

Location:

Atherstone, 17 Church Road, St Marks

Proposal:

Proposed rear and side extension to provide 3 dwelling units (re-submission 16/00375/FUL)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

5

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced the application as above, to develop the rear corner of the  property with a flat roofed extension to provide three two-bedroomed flats and car parking.  It is a re-submission of a previously refused scheme, with a revised footprint and more contemporary design approach which officers consider acceptable.  The impact on neighbouring properties will be reduced, and the recommendation therefore is to permit.   It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Coleman, in view of the high level of public interest, and significant change proposed to a prominent building.

 

Public Speaking:

None. 

 

Member debate:

None. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

111.

17/00114/FUL 3 Church Street, Charlton Kings pdf icon PDF 139 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00114/FUL

Location:

3 Church Street, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two-storey rear extension to form kitchen/dining and living space

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

Yes

 

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Paul McCloskey, in view of the special features of the plot.  Officers have concerns about the impact of the proposed extension on the existing building and on the conservation area; revisions have been suggested, but the applicant wants the proposal to be considered as it is.  The recommendation is therefore to refuse.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Ms Lucinda Mongor, neighbour, in objection

Lives at Waterloo Cottage, one of three linked cottages built around 1815.  The application next door is for a 1.5-storey contemporary extension to replace the single storey conservatory.  This will impact on the conservation area – St Mary’s Charlton Kings was designated in 2009, and the adopted legislation specifically mentions Church Street for its historic buildings and architectural importance. The local authority has a statutory duty to ensure that the future enhancement and preservation of the area is taken into consideration when applications are assessed.  If permitted, this application will encourage other contemporary extensions, which will gradually erode the area, making the designation meaningless.   The owners of the three cottages were aware of these compliances when they bought their homes, and these should be upheld now.  A 1.5-storey extension is inappropriate in size and style, with conflicting roof form and dominance, detracting from the appearance of the historical cottages when it should in fact be blending in with the local character and not of a contemporary design which stands out as too modern – it should complement the existing cottage in material and design.  Strongly disagrees with the architect’s comment that the extension is insignificant compared to existing buildings, that it improves the general views, and that it will not be visible from the conservation area.  If built, its size and differing materials certainly will impact on its surroundings, and will not comply with the conservation mandate to ‘enhance and preserve’.  It will be clearly visible from Church Street and her own side garden.  Has no objection to the replacement of the existing conservatory as a single storey on the original footings.  Built of similar materials, it would enhance and preserve the existing buildings, within the guidelines of the conservation area and in line with character appraisals for the area. 

 

 

Mr Michael Lumley, architect, in support

Has made hundreds of planning and listed building applications over the last 40 years, and this is only the second time has has felt the need to address committee, having usually been able to agree design alterations with officers.  Feels the planning office has made an extreme and very subjective assessment of this proposal, and is being inappropriately protective of the conservation area – which goes against the planning principal that development should be permitted as long as it causes no substantial harm to the significance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

112.

17/00135/FUL Priors Farm, Imjin Road pdf icon PDF 357 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00135/FUL

Location:

Priors Farm, Imjin Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two flood storage areas, creating new ditches and installation of new culverts

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

Yes

 

 

CS introduced the application as above, to address the surface water issues in Whaddon, Lynworth and Prestbury, as part of a wider flood alleviation project.  The site is divided in two, the north being in Tewkesbury Borough Council jurisdiction, and the south being Priors Farm.  The proposed flood storage areas will improve flood relief protection to 230 properties. It is at Planning Committee because the applicant is Gloucestershire County Council, and the land is owned by Cheltenham Borough Council.    Members will have noticed there is a representation from CBH, concerned because Priors Farm has been identified as a future development site, and the siting of the storage areas may impact on this.  These concerns are considered to carry only minimal weight, and the application must be determined tonight.  The recommendation is to approve, subject to conditions.  The proposal was screened against EI regulations before submission, and did not require any further action.

 

Member Debate

There was none.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

113.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

Thanks

As this is Chloe Smart’s last Planning Committee before leaving CBC, GB thanked her for all the work she’s done, and the lovely was she has presented her applications, always pleasant and with a smile.  She has been a credit to CBC and the planning department, and Members wish her well in her future endeavours.

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 8.30pm.