Agenda and minutes

Councillors Seacome and Colin Hay.

i.  17/00337/FUL Central Cheltenham Police Station

 - Councillor McCloskey – personal only – is a member of the Police and Crime Panel

 - Councillor Nelson – personal only – is a member of the Police and Crime Panel

 - Councillor Hobley – is substitute on the Police and Crime Panel (has not yet attended a meeting)

ii.  17/01238/FUL 2 Giffard Way

-       Councillor Nelson – is a member of the Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council, but has not been involved in any discussion of this application

- Councillor Fisher – visited BMW; googled others

 - Councillor Nelson – Police HQ, BMW, 2 Giffard Way

 - Councillor Baker – BMW, Police HW

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th July 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

MP introduced the application as above, on the former Police HQ site on Lansdown Road, which was allocated for housing development in the 2006 Local Plan, being noted as a significant negative feature in the central conservation area.  The application is for 68 residential units with associated parking and landscaping, comprising 43 apartments facing Lansdown Road and 25 town houses on the rear portion of the site.  A green open space is also included in the scheme.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, primarily due to concerns about highways matters.  The proposal has been the subject of extensive pre-app discussion and revision.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to S106 agreements on education, libraries and playspace.

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Members will have read the officer report and noted the conclusion in respect of this longstanding allocated brownfield site for 67 1-5 bedroomed houses.  Cala is a medium-sized building company, aims at high quality design, attractive sites, and good quality homes. Extensive discussions have taken place in the preparation of this application, with officers, consultees, and residents, and various changes made taking matters raised into consideration. There have only been nine  objections, mostly concerning traffic, and the Talbot Road/Lansdown Road junction.  The highways authority does not consider any extra work to the junction is needed, and has no objection, agreeing there will be a significant reduction in traffic compared with the previous use as a police HQ; the applicant’s own consultant has suggested this could be as much as 60%.  All S106 contributions will be paid; applying vacant building credit results in the scheme providing no affordable housing. Vacant building credit was intended to incentivise the delivery of brownfield sites while avoiding situations where sites are deliberately brought forward to take advantage of this rule.  This is not the case here – there has been a longstanding intention of the police and council to develop the site and provide new premise for police.  Failure to deliver the site was in part due to all the costs and contributions associated with it,  but the sale of the site is in the public interest.  The design has evolved through discussion with officers and a presentation to neighbours. Following a presentation to Committee members,  comments re bin storage and parking have been taken on board, resulting in a high quality proposal that will make a positive contribution to the conservation area.  This view is shared by residents who attended the presentation, and further indicated by the lack of objections on this matter. 

Councillor Harman

This is the most significant application to affect Park Ward and prime entrance to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

MJC introduced this application for a two-storey rear and single-storey side extension, of overtly contemporary design.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Harman and Wilkinson, in view of the the impact it will have on the neighbouring property.  Members saw the site on Planning View.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Ward, neighbour, in objection

Lives with his family at No. 9, which is connected by a shared party wall.  There are two key areas of concern with this proposal:  firstly, the adverse impact on amenity; and secondly, the size of  the proposal.  It is bulky and intrusive; the contemporary design dominates original building. At 3.5m it will be oppressive, uninviting, claustrophobic, decreasing daylight and sunlight to his house. The light test has been done using drawings proven to be inaccurate, not using accurate measurements.  The ground floor windows would fail 45^o test on elevations plan, and the proposal will cause significant overshadowing to rear.  By virtue of its size, the proposal will cause unacceptable harm to his garden.  Material understatement of size of s      The style adopted is not in keeping with the conservation area, which is predominantly 1930s semi-detached houses.   Material zinc.  Other houses in the area have added single-storey rear extensions in similar materials to the original; this is much bigger and clad in zinc, which will be visible from the front.  It should be rejected or moderated to be more in keeping neighbouring properties and conservation area.

Mrs Bish, applicant, in support

This is her family home, which she wants to extend and modernise to create modern flexible living space, to be enjoyed by her children and grandchildren.  In designing the extension, has respected the location in conservation area, keeping key changes at the rear, using the most resilient materials and creating  new spaces which take advantage of the natural benefits of the rear garden.  Listened to planning officers’ opinions and neighbours’ concerns.  Planning officer’s tone of officer report and conclusion – own distinct design merits, not detract from principles in conservation area.  Urge to support plans for updates home for self and family to enjoy.

Councillor Harman

How many members on view?  Three occasions, Mr Ward passion as resilient.  If on view, Mr Ward put to indicate scale and proximity.  Case re overbearing strong – Tryes Road not long, not massive objections.  16 Tryes Road – opposite – 3^rd paragraph – significantly larger than neighbours, out of context.  30 Painswick Road – Chair of SPJARA – closing para – reject or modify – less un-neigbourly.  Members think very carefully.  PB said in previous application – could do better.  This could do better too.  Mr Ward realises neighbour needs to make changes – possibility to look at again.  Not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

EP introduced the application as above, for a foodstore and coffee shop, with access from the existing vehicular access on Tewkesbury Road and from Rutherford Way to the rear.  There is an extant outline permission for shops, a pub and a gym, which is a realistic fall-back.  Officers have considered the visual and retail impact, and Highways officers do not consider the increase in traffic will be significant.  The recommendation is to approve, with conditions. It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Clucas and the parish council, due to concerns about traffic generation and the impact on neighbours.

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, of Hunter Page Planning, in support

Thanked officers for all their work on this application, and the recommendation to permit, with robust conditions. Planning permission was granted on this site in 2016; a detailed Road Traffic Assessment has been prepared, to assess the impact on the retain centres, which concludes that the impact will be minimal, and the traffic generated by the retail food outlet and coffee shop less significant than the extant permission.  Regarding hours of opening and lighting, there have been no objections from Highways or from environmental health officers.  The scheme has been amended as a result of officer comments, to enhance the visual amenity, landscaping and trees.  Support for iportal –the Lidl website received 374 votes, 77% in support of a new store at this site, and over 900 people have signed a petition in its favour.  The application brings with it a number of benefits for the town, including economic investment, the creation of 60 permanent jobs in addition to construction jobs, the redevelopment of an important site on the gateway to the town, and well-designed landscaping.  All this must tip the balance in favour of the proposal, and with conditions in place to protect neighbours’ amenity and highways issues well covered, hopes that Members will support the officer recommendation to permit.

Councillor Clucas

There are a number of reasons to request this application be considered by Planning Committee:  firstly the 24-hour customer access to some of the facilities; secondly the effect of the lighting on residents of Glynbridge Gardens; and thirdly, the effect of this additional development on air quality in the area.  The agent has said the conditions are robust, but they could be more robust.  If there is going to be 24-hour access to the site, given the problems in the area with boy racers and anti-social behaviour, this will provide a good opportunity for this to continue.  The conditions can be further enhanced to include a mechanism by which the public cannot gather, race, or do hand-brake turns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

MP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that they refused a similar scheme in April.  This proposal has been amended to address Members’ concerns.  Render, bricks and dark grey cladding has improved the transition between the apartment block and the houses in Libertus Court. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Halliday, due to neighbours’ concerns that the proposal will be overbearing and result in loss of amenity.

Public Speaking:

Mr Toby Coombes, of Coombes Everitt, in support

To provide context, there is extant consent for development of this site, with houses at the back and a large building at the front.  This was approved at Planning Committee, but criticised by Members for its poor design.  His clients’ view is that they would like something better for this visually important site close to the railway station.  The recommendation in March referred to the design in relation to the adjacent buildings.  The developer has since worked with planning officers to understand this more fully, and reviewed the locality carefully, noting the mix of contemporary and old, flat and pitched roofs etc, a great variety of styles with no clear theme for new buildings to aspire to.  A contemporary approach was therefore felt to be appropriate, with the  height lowered at the left hand side and set back. Various improvements regarding the stair well and number of openings etc have resulted in this proposed building which will be an improvement on the existing, and fit in well along Gloucester Road, as the photo montage shows.  Officers consider this to be a positive revision.  The proposal was previously supported, and with these further improvements, urges Members to support the officer recommendation and approve the proposal.

Member debate

PB:  likes it!

PT:  is not sure what there is to like.  Cannot see the two semis, and would suggest the developer needs to go back to the drawing board to produce something more homely, attractive, and Gloucester Road-ish.   This is a horrible idea – anything with a flat roof and modern design does not fit in and isn’t fair on the residents. 

BF:  is concerned regarding the collection of rubbish and refuse from Libertus Road and R Road – UBICO won’t be able to get a dustbin van down there, and residents will therefore have to bring the bins up. 

MP, in response:

-       Refuse and recycling proposals are unchanged from the previously approved scheme for  the four units.  Access has always been from Roman Road, with bin storage at the back. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT

LW introduced the scheme for a contemporary dwelling built in the side garden of 11 Bradley Road, part of the footpath, and the garden of 29 Croft Gardens.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillors Walklett and Bickerton.  Officers consider it to be a contrived form of development, not suitable for the plot, out of character, and causing significant harm to the amenity of 28 Croft Gardens, overbearing and overshadowing the garden.

Public Speaking:

Mr Berry, applicant, in support

Has lived in Bradley Road for five years with his wife and two children; likes the area and being part of the community.  In 2012, was granted permission to build a two-storey side extension on his house, but has since realised there is an opportunity to use the large space to the side of the house and the barely-used footpath to create an exciting new home, leaving the main house in its existing form.  There are  bungalows, three-storey flats, detached, semi-detached, many different styles in the area, and this  modern design will not look out of place.  The vast majority of neighbours agree;  five support, and only one objects, and there are conditions to cover their concerns, including frosted windows.  Would have expected more opposition if the proposal was a problem, and the Parish Council has no objection.  This is a sustainable location, with shops and public transport nearby, and this effective use of the site will take pressure off country sites.  There are issues with footpath,  but this is not a planning issue, and to be resolved. 

Member debate:

MC:  went on site visit and spent a lot of time looking at this site, and photos from the agent.  Doesn’t like the proposal – a bit of land from one house, a bit from another, re-siting the footpath, even though we are told this is nothing to do with planning.  Doesn’t like the design.  All in all, there isn’t a lot going for this proposal, and sees no reason to go against the officer recommendation.

GB:  feels the LW’s comment was most pertinent – this is a contrived scheme, and unacceptable.

SW:  is on the right of way team - this is not a conflicting interest although if the application was to be permitted, could be looking at this at a future stage.  When first saw the application, including the building over a public right of way, wondered why it was even brought to committee.  If the footpath can’t be moved, the scheme can’t go ahead.  Is also with officers on this.  Is not an enormous fan of backland development at the best of times, but contrived is certainly the right word here.  The proposal is trying to fit a quart into a pint pot and just doesn’t work.  Fully supports the officers.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

HDJ introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Nelson, on account of the harm it will cause to neighbouring amenity through loss of light to the kitchen window.  Officers consider there are multiple sources of natural light to the kitchen, and therefore the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Small, neighbour, in objection

Is objecting to this application on account of the loss of light to her kitchen.  Officers say there are multiple sources of light, but the light from the patio doors is blocked by a wall.  This is a much-used kitchen, and will be gloomy.  It is north facing, so not the brightest of spaces at the best of times.  This scheme will result in loss of outlook and amenity she has enjoyed for 51 years.  Looking at a brick wall 2.4m from her kitchen window is a horrifying prospect, and will result in a sense of claustrophobia.  Has been advised the proposal doesn’t comply with Cheltenham requirements. 

Member debate:

TO:  went on Planning View, and agrees that the kitchen area is dark, and light currently entering from the patio is deflected.  If this application is permitted, it will infringe on the current light and result in a very dark room.

PT:  will move to refuse this proposal, as the light to the kitchen will be compromised.  The big block in the middle detracts from the light, and the new wall will be very close to the window and very, very oppressive.  It will compromise the neighbour’s enjoyment of her home.

CN:  asked for this application to be brought to Committee; having visited the site was uncomfortable with officer advice, and wanted to see how other Members felt.  Did not go on Planning View for this reason, so welcomes the comments from TO and PT which reinforce his own views.  The loss of light is the predominant issue.  There are four light sources to the kitchen, yet the first thing that struck him on entering the kitchen was that it was generally a dark room.  The large mirror on the back wall is obviously there in an effort to make the most of what limited light there is.  If the extension is allowed to go ahead, it would fail the light test on the last side window, only leaving the patio doors and chimney sun room, through which very limited lights comes in.  The two side windows are north facing, the patio doors west facing.  If the proposal goes ahead, it will have a significant effect on the amenity due to the impact on the light.  It should be refused on Policy CP4 for this reason.

HM:  agrees with all that has been said.  The kitchen was extremely dark and that was on a sunny summer’s day.  What it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

CC introduced the application to remove the whole horse chestnut tree, which takes up the whole front garden of the house.  It has a TPO, so the recommendation is to permit, subject to a replacement tree of a more appropriate nature being planted in its place.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  surely it would be unwise to plant a replacement tree in the same spot; the residents could end up with the same problem in 70 years.

AH:  would like to make the case to keep the tree.  It has been there substantially longer than the buildings, and is one of very few trees in the area.  Cheltenham is known for its trees; they are part of the town’s heritage.  This is a healthy tree, and cannot agree with it being ripped away.

MC:  doesn’t like chopping down beautiful trees, and this has been there for ever.  But has been on site and read the officer report; this tree has a few problems.  The report talks about removing and replacing the tree, saying that it would have to be removed in 15 or so years anyway; if a tree is planted in its place now, it will be reasonably mature in 15 years.  Will be sad to see it go, as it is beautiful tree; wouldn’t normally support its removal.

SW:  is a great tree lover, and will be sad to see this tree removed, but it does carry disease.  It was there before the houses, before the current residents moved in – so it could be said that if they didn’t like the tree, they shouldn’t have moved in.  However, CC wouldn’t recommend the removal of a tree without good cause.  This tree is diseased and far too large for the site.  Will vote for it to go, though reluctantly.  Will be happier if something more suitable is planted in its place.

LS:  the report states that the horse chestnut has leaf miner. Is no expert in lepidoptery but the issue is the health of the tree, and there isn’t enough detail about this in the report.  Is it likely to fall down, to fall on the house, will it recover from the leaf miner or not?  Is it part of the eco system, or terminal for the tree?  This is an important consideration, and is uncomfortable if a precedent is set to take trees down at the first sign of disease.

HM:  supports SW.  CBC is fortunate to have a professional, dedicated tree officer who does his best to support and preserve trees wherever he can.  If he says it should go, it should go.

CC, in response:

-       horse chestnut leaf miner is a perennial problem, causing the leaves of the tree to turn brown and crispy.  It will look healthy and verdant in Spring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.