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

114.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Oliver, Councillor McCloskey.

115.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

16/00202/OUT Land Off Kidnappers Lane

Councillor Nelson – is a member of LEGLAG

 

16/02105/FUL Cotswold Grange Hotel, Pittville Circus Road

Councillor Lillywhite – as a Cheltenham hotelier.  Will leave the Chamber.

 

116.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

17/00395/FUL 24 Leyson Road

Councillor Wheeler

 

17/00129/FUL Castle Dream Stud

Councillor Baker

 

16/01907/FUL Sandford Court

Councillor Sudbury – has visited the site previously and given advice to residents.

 

16/02105/FUL Cotswold Grange Hotel

Councillor Sudbury

 

16/00202/OUT Land off Kidnappers Lane, 17/00218/FUL 1 Hartley Close, 17/00291/LBC Town Hall

Councillor Sudbury – knows sites well.

 

117.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

118.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 303 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd March 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

119.

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

120.

16/00202/OUT Land off Kidnappers Lane pdf icon PDF 837 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00202/OUT

Location:

Land off Kidnappers Lane

Proposal:

Residential development of up to 45 dwellings, associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping, with creation of new vehicular access from Kidnappers Lane, demolition of existing buildings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

91

Update Report:

Refusal reasons

 

CH introduced the application, on a site adjacent to the Cheltenham urban area, to the north of Kidnappers Lane in Leckhampton.  The site is a relatively flat 1.3hectares, a semi-rectangular are of former plant nursery.  This outline application seeks to build up to 45 dwellings, and sets out associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping, with new vehicular access from Kidnappers Lane.  An application for 650 dwellings on adjacent land was refused in 2014, and subsequently dismissed at appeal by the Secretary of State in May 2016.  The current application site originally formed part of the refused planning application, but was withdrawn and not considered in the appeal process.  The current application was submitted in February 2016, before the appeal decision on the 650 dwellings, but the applicant has requested that it be considered as submitted.  Some of the information submitted is out of date, having been drafted over a year ago, before the outcome of the 650 appeal decision. 

 

Members will have noticed on Planning View that there are a number of unauthorised activities on the site, including the storage of touring caravans and motor homes, and fly-tipping.  Enforcement action is in progress, requiring the site to be cleared in two months, from 1st May. 

 

The recommendation is to refuse, linked to the principle of development, prematurity, the impact on the landscape, the isolated nature of the proposal, and the lack of an S106 agreement.     

 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor Penny Henty, parish councillor for Leckhampton with Warden Hill, in objection

The Chairman of the Parish Council is unable to present at the meeting, so is therefore speaking both on behalf of the Parish Council and also for Ian Bickerton, CBC councillor and member of Leglag. 

 

The Hitchins site is part of the 13/01605/OUT application, refused in July 2014.  This part of the site was subsequently removed, before the appeal, but the grounds on which the appeal was refused apply equally to this site –damage to the landscape, and the severe cumulative traffic congestion it will cause.  Traffic is already frequently gridlocked on Church Road, and this application would make it much worse.  Granting permission would cause very rapid deterioration of the network, as this is the only traffic route round the south of Cheltenham, and the impact of the development at North Brockworth and Leckhampton Fields is as yet unknown – caution is needed to consider the cumulative impact of a further 45 dwellings.  The proposal will have an impact on the views to Leckhampton Hill, and the character and landscape of the fields.  The JCS Inspector recommended any development on fields should be to the north of the area, on the urban edge away from Leckhampton Hill.The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

121.

16/01907/FUL Sandford Court, Humphris Place pdf icon PDF 202 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01907/FUL

Location:

Sandford Court, Humphris Road

Proposal:

Erection of two picket fences adjacent to patios (retrospective)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

25

Update Report:

No

 

MJC introduced this retrospective planning application for two picket fences in a new residential development.  They are set in a communal space, shared by all the apartments, and planning permission is required because they are adjacent to a listed building.  Councillor Sudbury has requested the application be considered at Committee, due to the high level of residents’ objections.  

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

KS:  this is a difficult application, and has caused a lot of friction between residents, which would have been wholly unnecessary if the developer had got the scheme right in the first place.  When residents first contacted her, could not see why it was such a big deal, but having visited the site, understood why they are concerned and felt it important to debate the issue.  In other circumstances, fences like this are not an issue, but here they cause a problem.  Firstly, the type of fencing is out of keeping – it has a suburban cottage style, while the rest of the development is high end, and features nothing else like this.  Secondly, the space is communal, and needs to be available so that all residents feel they can use it.  It is a planning issue; planning is about helping developers to make places where people can live comfortably, whether this is private, public or communal spaces.  This site is unfortunate – not one thing or the other.  Residents of the upper floors can’t use the communal space.  It is situated in a very narrow part of the site.  The issue needs far more attention;  all residents should be able to enjoy the gardens. 

 

Welcomes the revisions to the scheme, but still feels it should not be permitted.  It is out of keeping, and reduces the communal area.  Personally feels the site needs to be re-landscaped, with no step-drops, but this is not an excuse, and communal space is important at this part of the site because it is so narrow.  It’s such a shame as this is otherwise a good development – this is a weak point, and disappointing.  Hopes that CBC learns a lesson that communal spaces cannot be left to chance – it neither looks good, nor helps with the garden’s function. 

 

Strongly urges Members to refuse or defer, to allow re-profiling of the grass to a more gentle slope.  The communal garden is not currently a usable space for people paying for the privilege of using it.  It isn’t great for people on the ground floor either; they have private spaces but no particular understanding of how they can use it.  Hopes for a better proposal.  Will move to refuse or defer, but would add that the residents who objected would be happier if the fences were of materials more in keeping with the rest of the development, allowing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

122.

16/02105/FUL Cotswold Grange Hotel, Pittville Circus Road pdf icon PDF 74 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

*Councillor Lillywhite left the Chamber during the following debate*

 

Application Number:

16/01205/FUL

Location:

Cotswold Grange Hotel, Pittville Circus Road

Proposal:

Proposed erection of gates and boundary railings, new landscaping scheme and car park reconfiguration

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

13

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced the application which Members considered last month, deferring it on a single issue, concerning the three trees – Holly, Yew and Pine.  The revised plans secure the retention of these trees, and the the recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

 

Member debate:

PT:  how wide is the gate?  Where will the bin lorries go?

 

EP, in response:

-       Confirmed that arrangements will be as before:  the gate is approximately 2m wide, and the bin lorries will not access them.

 

CH:  this application was deferred on account of the trees, and is pleased that these are now being retained, but still cannot support it.  Residents are not happy about bin lorries on the corner, and the extra noise the application will cause.

 

PB:  thanks to officers for negotiating a better result for the trees.  Suggests that in the future they are a bit more determined about retaining trees where they can.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

 

123.

17/00129/FUL Castle Dream Stud, Mill Lane, Charlton Kings pdf icon PDF 222 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00129/FUL

Location:

Castle Dream Stud, Mill Lane, Charlton Kings

Proposal:

Change of use of land for the permanent residential occupation by a traveller family, provision of day room, retention of hardstanding, access, fencing, stables and use of associated land for keeping of horses.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

21

Update Report:

(i)      Additional representations

(ii)     Report update – additional condition

(iii)    Appendix to report – previous appeal decision

 

EP introduced this application for planning permission for use of land for permanent occupation of a traveller family, and other provisions, as above.  The land was previously occupied under a temporary permission following an earlier appeal decision, which has now expired.  Previously there were three static caravans at the site; now there is just one.  The application is for a personal consent for the applicant only.  While it is acknowledged that the proposal causes some minor harm to the AONB, the lack of gypsy and traveller sites in Cheltenham, and the needs and human rights of the applicant have to be taken into consideration.  The emerging JCS policy is criteria-based, and there is no straightforward alternative site.  In March 2017, a county-wide assessment identified the need for three pitches in the borough. The continuing need is not likely to be filled by the JCS, and officers therefore feel it appropriate to recommend that permission be granted.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Langdon, on behalf of Save our AONB and neighbours, in objection

Began by reminding Members that Cotswold AONB has the highest status of protection under the National Parks Act 1949, and the NPPF requires local authorities to give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty – which this proposal will not, as a planning inspector has said at a previous appeal.  Despite this, the inspector permitted a strictly conditioned, personal and temporary permission, until January 2017.  Save our AONB cannot argue with this, but strongly objects to a permanent and unrestricted permission being granted.  The application states that the site is 2.4 hectares, not just the 0.2 hectares covering the south-west corner.  Members could unwittingly have granted permission for C3 land use over the whole site.  They should also know that surface water continues to spill over Mill Lane several times a year, despite claims that drainage isn’t a problem, causing a hazard when icy; the use of the land now is nothing like it was in 2013, and there have been no horses on site for at least three years; another high, close-boarded fence went up on site about a year ago, subdividing a large open field and contrary to the 2016 Cotswold AONB Landscape Strategy; and the septic tank was cleared out this year and is no longer sufficient for a family and business.  Thirdly, this application is attempting to subvert the protection of public interest by pre-empting alternative sites being brought forward through the JCS – one such site could be Arle Nurseries, on green belt land.  The inspector specifically said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

124.

17/00149/FUL 22 Dagmar Road pdf icon PDF 182 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00149/FUL

Location:

22 Dagmar Road

Proposal:

Two-storey rear extension (revised scheme following recently approved application re. 16/02141/FUL)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Refuse

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

 

MJC introduced this application for a two-storey rear extension, following a previously approved scheme for an extension half the width of the property.  This application seeks a full-width extension, at two storeys.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, and Members visited the site on Planning View.  The recommendation is to refuse, in view of the harm to the building. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Baglow, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak in support of her planning application.  Needed to extend her house to accommodate her family, with a third bedroom and upstairs bathroom.  The previous scheme was approved, but realised that better use of the space could be made, with a full-width extension.  Followed advice of the planning officer and subservience guidelines – the revised scheme is 17.5% smaller than the previous one, and must therefore be considered subservient.  Considers the proposal to comply with CP7 with regard to high standard of design, materials and architectural integrity, and windows in keeping.  This proposal reduces the impact on the neighbouring property – there will be no over-looking.  Has been in touch with a party wall surveyor.  Understands that the house is in a conservation area, but the extension is at the back of the property.  The proposal also follows green principles.  This alternative lay-out is more characterful, and both Nos. 11 and 19 Dagmar Road have full-width extensions.  Considers that all concerns have been addressed.  The revised scheme is a smaller, more efficient, optimised design, with less impact on the site than the approved scheme.

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  understands where the officer comments are coming from, but noted on Planning View the neighbouring property with a two-storey half-width extension.  Felt that this longer, narrower extension was much higher and more imposing – as the applicant has said, the full-width extension won’t extend as far.  It will be a much more useful space.  On balance, as this is at the back of the building not the front, will be in favour and vote to permit.

 

MC:  has looked at the drawings, and considers the proposed lay-out of the full-width extension better than the longer, narrower rear extension.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

2 in support

7 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

 

MJC, in response:

-       Had not expected Members to vote in this way.  Has heard SW’s comments, but would just reiterate some of the important points made in the report;

-       Consistency is very important here.  The local authority has an SPD on residential extensions, setting out various principles, in particular that of subservience.  An extension should take a supporting role, and this is officers’ principle concern here – the full-width extension masks the back of the building;

-       It is important to remember this is a conservation area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

125.

17/00165/FUL 259 Gloucester Road pdf icon PDF 97 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00165/FUL

Location:

259 Gloucester Road

Proposal:

Erection of 6no. one bedroom units within an apartment block and a pair of semi-detached two bed houses on land adjacent to 259 Gloucester Road.

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

8

Update Report:

None

 

CH introduced this application on a piece of land adjacent to a terrace facing Gloucester Road, opposite the railway station.  The existing terrace is part of the neighbourhood shopping centre; the other boundaries adjoin properties in Libertus Court and Roman Road.  The site is currently rough ground, with no defined use.  Planning permission was granted in 2016 for four dwellings on the site – two houses, two flats – at two storeys of red brick, with pitched roofs and three off-road car-parking spaces.  This alternative scheme is for two 2-bed semi-detached houses, and six 1-bed flats, of brick construction, with a flat roof, and six off-street parking spaces.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Coleman, as the two previous schemes have also been considered at Committee.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

PT:  is very disappointed by this scheme.  The previous application was acceptable and fitted in with the area much better.  This doesn’t fit.  The terrace of shops are houses which have been turned into shops.  They look residential, whereas this proposal is a horror.  The block of flats should go at the back of the site and the houses should come forward to complement the terrace of shops and the small houses on the other side. Would like to see this application refused on design grounds. 

 

MC:  asked officers on the bus – the applicants already have an approved scheme; this is an alternative to the existing permission; if it is refused, can they fall back to that?

 

CH, in response:

-       Regarding the design approach – this is always subjective, and it is a difficult site to get a perfect scenario.  Some Members wanted something more bold when the previous scheme was considered;

-       Linking the new building to the shops will always be difficult, but officers feel on balance that this is a good design for this location;

-       To MC, yes, the applicant can fall back to the previously-granted permission if this is refused.

 

PT:  feels that this proposal will stick out and not appear as part of the area.  New buildings are supposed to fit in and look semi-reasonable.  This is not even a statement, it is just a block.  If it has to be included, it should be at the back of the site with the houses at the front, in line with the existing terrace facing the main road to Cheltenham.  The proposed scheme will be a real blot on the landscape.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

6 in objection

NOT CARRIED

 

GB:  can Members suggest refusal reasons.

 

PT:  Design – it doesn’t fit the area. 

 

BF:  suggests CP7.

 

MC:  it isn’t in keeping with the street scene.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

126.

17/00218/FUL 1 Hartley Close pdf icon PDF 78 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00218/FUL

Location:

1 Hartley Close, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Proposed two storey side, single storey rear & single storey front extensions

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application as above.  It has been amended, revising the internal lay-out to address the neighbour’s privacy concerns.  It is at Committee because a senior member of CBC staff lives next door. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

None.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

 

127.

17/00268/LBC Municipal Offices pdf icon PDF 140 KB

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00268/LBC

Location:

Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Replacement of some of the fire doors in the Municipal Offices

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant

Committee Decision:

Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced this listed building application to install 24 modern fire doors, to paint 3 historic doors with fire-retardant paint, and to apply smoke/heat seals to bring them up to modern fire resistance standards.  Heritage and Conservation Officers are happy with the proposal, and the recommendation is to approve.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

None.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

10 in support – unanimous

GRANT

 

128.

17/00291/LBC Cheltenham Town Hall pdf icon PDF 84 KB

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00291/LBC

Location:

Cheltenham Town Hall, Imperial Square, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Roof repairs

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant

Committee Decision:

Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced this application for the renewal of flat roof areas to the front of the Town Hall, and the removal and renewal of skylights.  Heritage and Conservation Officers are happy with the proposal; the recommendation is to grant listed building consent.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

None.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

10 in support – unanimous

GRANT

 

 

129.

17/00395/FUL 24 Leyson Road, The Reddings pdf icon PDF 182 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00395/FUL

Location:

24 Leyson Road, The Reddings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two-storey side extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

CH introduced this application for a two-storey side-extension to a semi-detached bungalow in a cul-de-sac, to provide a kitchen and additional bedrooms and bathrooms.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Wheeler, to consider the impact on the neighbouring amenity and the character of the area.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  the drawings for this application are disingenuous.  Looking at the front, with the extension being proposed, the house looks identical to the other end of the building – would find it difficult to argue against it.  However, the reality is that the one on the right is much larger.  There is no picture from the back but the two-storey extension will be very over-bearing on the property next door. When residents at No. 26 put in an identical application, officers recommended it for refusal, presumably because it was too large?  Has no concerns about the front of the building, but is concerned about the effect on the neighbour at the back.

 

CH, in response:

-       There is no planning history to shed light on any discussions or negotiations regarding the other application.  It was granted as submitted;

-       Regarding this proposal, the front has been re-designed to be subservient; the two-storey extension at the back reads as a single-storey addition.  The lay-out is constrained, but at its closest point, the single-storey element will be 4m from the neighbouring boundary, the two-storey 8-9m, where the boundary tapers away;

-       Officers are content and consider the design and impact on the neighbouring properties to be acceptable.

 

PT:  how much extra room is involved, square-footage-wise?

 

CH, in response:

-       The footprint of the existing property is 71 square metres; the proposed extension is 56 square metres, 90 square metres including two storeys.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

 

130.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.