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

159.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors McCloskey, Seacome and Hobley.

160.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/01085/FUL 236 Hatherley Road: 

i.         Councillor Mason – member of Up Hatherley Parish Council, which has objected to this application.  Is not party to the working group, has not looked at the application – therefore no personal or prejudicial interest.

 

16/01789/FUL Land to south side of Glenfall Way: 

i.      Councillor Mason – father lives nearby hand has objected.  Will withdraw from the Chamber during this debate.

ii.     Councillor Savage –  will speak in objection and withdraw from the Chamber and the vote. 

 

161.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

16/01789/FUL Land to south side of Glenfall Way: 

Councillor Baker and Councillor Oliver.

 

162.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

163.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 307 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd June 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

164.

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

165.

17/00759/FUL Cheltenham Cemetery and Crematorium, Bouncers Lane pdf icon PDF 527 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00759/FUL

Location:

Cheltenham Cemetery and Crematorium, Bouncers Lane

Proposal:

Access arrangements for the proposed erection of a new crematorium  (Access road in part within Cheltenham Borough Council with the proposed crematorium and associated works within Tewkesbury Borough Council.)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

Conditions

 

CH introduced the application as above, explaining that it relates to a proposal between both CBC and TBC.  The original chapel building is no longer fit for purpose, and a study was carried out in 2015 to assess the options and consider how best to serve Cheltenham – it concluded that the most viable option was to build a new one.  In 2017, CBC agreed to construct a new facility on land to the east of the current site, owned by TBC, comprising two chapels and a waiting area.  This needs to be accessed by the road network, including a new egress road.  The grazing land where the buildings will go is in Tewkesbury borough – there is currently a planning application in for consideration at TBC – but it is for CBC to consider  the new egress road along the south boundary of site and the rear boundaries of residential properties, and also the need for a temporary road during the construction phase, to the west boundary of Priors Farm playing field.    The recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

 

 

Member debate:

MC:  was on Planning View, and it was clear to see that no solution was going to be easy here – it is difficult to find a viable solution to these issues.  Has spoken with officers and been advised that every viable option has been explored, and this one is considered to be the best.  Walked the site on Planning View; it was clear that it wouldn’t work to have funeral processions using a residential road.  In an ideal world, starting from scratch, the road would not be situated here,but we don’t have that luxury.  Is therefore mindful to support the application and get on with it.

 

BF:  has very little to add.  The report is excellent – crosses all the t’s and dots all the i’s.  The proposal is difficult, but has attended briefings on the crematorium as a cabinet member, and knows that this is the best solution.  It addresses the current lay-out and car-parking problems.

 

AL:  regarding the cross-section drawings of the carriageway, is this permanent as well as temporary?  How will the temporary carriageway sustain heavy vehicles, and how will they be cleaned up?

 

CHay:  doesn’t want to put obstacles in the way of the new cemetery and crematorium, and realises this is a difficult site to access, but it would be remiss not to raise the concerns of residents in Imjin Road, for the period of construction.  The road has parking on both sides, and construction traffic will find it difficult to go up and down the road.  Temporary parking restrictions will also cause  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

166.

17/00484/FUL 41 Asquith Road pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00484/FUL

Location:

41 Asquith Road, Cheltenham

 

DEFERRED

 

 

167.

17/01085/FUL 236 Hatherley Road pdf icon PDF 214 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/01085/FUL

Location:

236 Hatherley Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Single-storey rear extension and two-storey side extension

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

BH introduced the application as above, at Planning Committee at the request of the Parish Council, in support of the objection from No. 234 Hatherley Road.  The officer recommendation is to grant planning permission.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Ashwood, neighbour, in objection

Has submitted a letter of objection to the Council, as has the owner of the Post Office at 238 Hatherley Road – yet the council is still prepared to right roughshod over adjacent neighbours’ views and recommend that this application be permitted.  There have been three extensions to this property, plus the erection of a conservatory, 3m in depth; the proposal is to replace this with a single-storey extension of 5.75m, tying in with the existing garage and office.  Together with the existing extensions, this will make the total depth of extension approximately 8.6m, part of which will be two-storey.  The original footprint of the house, with a separate wooden garage, was 53.3sq metres; with these extensions, the area will be approximately 150sq metres, 2.81 times larger than the original.  This is gross overdevelopment of the site in close proximity to adjoining properties.  From the bedroom window, will look out on approximately 74sq metres of flat roof, with two Velux windows likening it to a commercial unit.  Despite the proposal for a solid 8.6m wall, 2.8m in height, the council says this will not be overbearing on his property - boundary fences are normally up to 2m in height.  None of the surrounding rear gardens haver such a vast and aesthetically unpleasing structure.  Is concerned that a further application could be made to extend the two-storey extension; a line must be drawn at some point as to how many extensions can be added to a property of this size.   Taking into consideration both neighbours’ objections, would urge the committee to refuse, on their objections and also on overdevelopment grounds.

 

Mr Shine, applicant, in support  

Would like to briefly outline the reasons for this extension and address the objections raised.  A key factor is for maintenance – the existing flat roof extension is badly built, the timber roof is rotten and leaking, causing damp and mould; the conservatory footings have failed, the conservatory has dropped by an inch, with multiple leaks and draughts coming into the house;  both extensions are poorly designed and built, with a valley gutter which cannot be accessed for maintenance and is compounding the water ingress.   A second and main reason for the proposal is the need for space, having just had a third child;  want to create an open plan environment with an improved line of visibility, allowing the children to play safely and independently. Large bi-fold doors to the rear will help create the functional and practical space the family is looking for.  Considered the potential impact on No. 234 – it will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

168.

16/01789/FUL Land to south side of Glenfall Way pdf icon PDF 848 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/01789/FUL

Location:

Land to south side of Glenfall Way

Proposal:

Proposed erection of four dwellings with landscaping and public open space

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Refuse

Letters of Rep:

157

Update Report:

Conditions

 

MJC introduced the application as above, proposed for a parcel of land in the AONB.  Members will be familiar with the history of the site:  an outline planning application for 44 houses was dismissed at appeal in 2008 due to impact it would have on the AONB.  Since then, an independent report on the Cotswold AONB, carried out on behalf of the Council, has concluded that a limited part of this parcel of land has limited capacity for residential development. The officer report sets out how to assess development in the AONB; the NPPF states that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, and local plan policy states that development which harms the natural beauty of the landscape within the AONB will not be permitted.  Assessed against these requirements, officers feel that the proposal conserves the  prevailing characteristics of the site and it is therefore difficult to articulate the specific harm it causes.    The lay-out and design of the proposed houses is unashamedly contemporary, protecting important views across the site, and with sensitive landscaping suitable for the context.  The recommendation is for approval, with conditions set out in the blue update.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Martin Langdon, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Local residents are shocked about the possible loss of this part of the AONB for the sake of a speculative development of elite housing.  Local Plan CO2 states that development which will harm the natural beauty of the AONB will not be permitted, and NPPF 115 requires great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. This proposal will neither conserve or enhance the AONB, even proposing holes 3-4 foot deep around three houses.  The applicant relies heavily on the Ryder report, which identified an area of this field as having low-medium capacity for development, though Stuart Ryder has subsequently said this development is out of keeping with the landscape setting and context, and its effect would be significant and adverse. The applicant has not demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the harm or that CO2 is out of date – insufficient weight has been given to this policy in what residents feel is a poorly balanced recommendation. 

 

Policy CP7 requires development of a high standard of architectural design, complementing and respecting neighbouring development and character.  This design is contemporary, but of poor quality and without sustainability merit. Because of the building’s orientation and planting what will be 40 foot trees, neither future residents nor anyone else will be able to see the beautiful views to the AONB.  Out of keeping with local housing, these mansions will be set apart from the community by high walls and fencing, will be covered in zinc sheet, and likely to have four or more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

169.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision