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

185.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Barnes.

 

186.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/00337/FUL Central Cheltenham Police Station

-       Councillor Helena McCloskey – is a members of Police and Crime Panel – personal but not prejudicial

-       Councillor Nelson - is a members of Police and Crime Panel – personal but not prejudicial

 

17/00484/FUL 41 Asquith Road

-       Councillor Oliver- the applicant is head teacher of the school at which he is a governor – personal but not prejudicial

 

17/01412/FUL 57 Hewlett Road

-       Councillor Savage – is a friend of the applicant

-       Councillor Seacome – is a friend of the applicant

 

187.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

Councillor Paul McCloskey - visited all sites

Councillor Helena McCloskey - visited all sites apart from 17/01412/FUL 57 Hewlett Road

Councillor Collins – visited 17/01220/FUL Cotswold View

 

188.

Public Questions

Minutes:

There were none.

189.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 279 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 17th August 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

190.

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

191.

17/00337/FUL Central Cheltenham Police Station, Talbot Road pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

Application Number:

17/00337/FUL

Location:

Central Cheltenham Police Station, Talbot House, Lansdown Road

Proposal:

Demolition of all existing buildings on site and erection of 67no. new homes, access, landscaping and other associated works at the former Police Headquarters, Lansdown Road

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application, which Members will remember was deferred at the August meeting to allow further discussion and negotiation with the applicants regarding the design of the apartment blocks on Lansdown Road.  Officers have met with the applicants, who have now made beneficial changes to the scheme, with a notable reduction in the footprint of Apartment Block C giving a 25% increase in the space between the apartment blocks, together with additional soft landscaping.  The penthouse accommodation on all three blocks has been reduced to improve visual separation between the buildings and a better transition between the development and Holland House.  Four of the apartments have been reduced from two-bed units to one-bed units, one flat has been lost from Block A, and car parking provision has increased by one space.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to S106 agreements on education, libraries and playspace.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, Hunter Page Planning, in support

As the officer has said,  Cala has taken all comments made at last meeting on board and amended the proposal accordingly.  There have been two meetings with officers to discuss revisions, as well as internal discussions to consider alternative options, such as making one block larger, or reducing the height of one of the others. With each alternative option, it was concluded that they undermined the quality of scheme in the was the three buildings relate to each other.  The changes have resulted in the loss of one dwelling and a change to the mix of dwellings so that four of the 2-bedroom apartments are now 1-bedroom apartments.  The footprint of Block C has been reduced, increasing the gaps between the three apartment blocks by 25%. The penthouse apartments have been scaled back to reduce the massing of the buildings and create a graduated relationship to buildings either side.  Two montage drawings have been prepared to show the views rom each side of the site and give a better impression of the design. Members’ comments have been carefully considered and alterations made, in addition to those previously made in response to comments from the Architects’ Panel and Historic England   Hopes Members will agree that the latest changes improve the scheme without compromising its quality and objectives. The proposal complies with policy, conserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area.  Hopes Members will therefore be able to support the officer recommendation. 

 

 

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  it would have been naïve to expect a major revision of what Members considered last month, but with the work of officers and architects, the modest visual changes have resulted in a better scheme.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

192.

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00484/FUL

Location:

41 Asquith Road,

Proposal:

Alterations and extensions to provide first floor accommodation

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

14

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, for the addition of a first floor to an existing bungalow.  The proposal has been significantly revised during the course of the application to address officer concerns, resulting in a 376mm overall increase in ridge height, and reduction in size of the three dormers to the front.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury to allow Members to consider the impact on neighbouring properties and character of the area.  It was deferred from July’s meeting to allow for errors in the drawings to be corrected.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Dellar, neighbour, in objection

Together with his parents, planned the layout for two low bungalows on their land, back in 1974.  It is a quiet area, and they wanted to ensure that any further building would not encroach on the peace of the neighbourhood and be of a high standard.  Neighbours in Mead Road and CBC were consulted, and restrictions included in the deeds of Nos 39 and 41 to ensure no elevation changed.  Good planning requires that extensions are subservient, but this proposal is overbearing and not subservient.  Fourteen neighbours have objected, and converting and increasing the size of No 41 will have a very unpopular impact on nearby properties.  The revised plans have made no difference to neighbours’ opinions, one comment likening it to ‘a squash court on top of a building’; it will appear as a flat-roofed two-storey house.  The first floor plans for three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a boiler room will dominate; the height and design are imposing; the dormers do not ‘respect the character and scale of the existing building’.  Neighbours in Mead Road and Asquith Road have serious concerns about privacy from particular rooms and gardens, and the three front windows are now in visual alignment with his own first floor bedrooms.  Planning officers originally stated that it was appropriate for CBC to recommend that the alterations remain within the existing envelope of the property, and this is what the neighbours want to happen.  The new building materials will be unsightly, and construction vehicles will damage the private drive.  There is plenty of room, particularly on the south side of the site for a ground level extension – requests that this is explored. CBC has a duty of care to protect privacy and amenity for local residents, who do not wish to stand in the way of improvement but believe that what is proposed is more akin to a new build house.

 

Mr Flooks, applicant, in support

Councillor Sudbury requested that this application be brought to Committee to allow Members to consider the impact on the neighbours and the character of the area.  Objections from neighbours have raised seven concerns:  overdevelopment, changes out of character with the area, visual impact of changes, impact on privacy,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

193.

17/00659/FUL Lilleybrook Golf Club pdf icon PDF 181 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

 

 

Application Number:

17/00659/FUL

Location:

Lilleybrook Golf Club, 313 Cirencester Road, Charlton Kings

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 (re-submission following refusal of planning application ref. 16/00383/FUL)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Letters of Rep:

10

Update Report:

Officer update and conditions

 

MJC introduced this application as above, reminding Members that an identical scheme was refused in December 2016, on the grounds of a lack of archaeological assessment and no S106 agreement.  The archaeological assessment has now been done and shown nothing of any significance.  Heads of terms 106 agreements are now in place to ensure completion – this is not uncommon. Conditions were circulated as a blue update today – most of the details relate to the drainage scheme – and the recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

 

Professor John Hughes, local resident on behalf of Charlton Kings Flood Action Group, in objection

Ten years ago, his house was flooded, and he and his family had to move out for one year – hence his involvement with CKFAG.  Is asking that the Committee refuses this application tonight.  His group’s position centres on seven issues.   First, the LLFA has approved modelling for the rainfall attenuation basin based on a different hydrological area - Region 4/Region 8 - with lesser storm rainfall;   technical justifications have been offered, but this practice is irrelevant and indefensible, and the use of correct data is essential. Second, the existing hydrological calculations are inadequate, and new calculations are needed, based on the actual hydrology of the region. Third, there is no full geo-technical assessment of the development, regarding possible landslip, changes in ground water levels, to ensure water quality and control sedimentation; neither is there risk assessment of the materials being dumped or how failures in the bund would be addressed. Fourth, the costs appear to fall on CBC and Cheltenham residents for remedial or repair work, and there is no evidence of a cash bond to ensure financial liability throughout the whole process, nor of a scheme for long-term monitoring, reporting and maintenance.  Fifth, concerns about how the developers would access, light and landscape this major development, and observe county guidelines concerning scope and commencement of work, hours of operation, maximum vehicle movements etc.  Sixth, why is such a massive amount of fill needed, and is it waste? It represents the volume of ten inches of road scalpings from both lanes of the M5 between Cheltenham and Michaelwood Services; what is this material and where is it coming from?  Finally, CKFAG urges Members to align themselves with the interests of Cheltenham residents and recognise that this disruptive and potentially dangerous application, on a massive and unnecessary scale, with risks and uncertainties, in an area of outstanding natural beauty.

 

 

Ms Coral Curtis, agent, in support

The previous application was refused in December 2016,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.

194.

17/01220/FUL Cotswold View, The Reddings pdf icon PDF 224 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01220/FUL

Location:

Cotswold View, The Reddings, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3no. dwellings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

48

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced the application as above.  Officers consider the scheme to be well-designed, and that it will fit well in the street scene with regard to size, mass, lay-out and design.  Highways officers are comfortable with the proposal, and it will not have an unacceptable impact in neighbouring amenity.  Various issues are dealt with by condition.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter, and the recommendation is to permit. 

 

A condition regarding obscure glazing, as mentioned at paragraph 5.2 of the report, has been omitted.  This will be added if the application is permitted.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Paul Thomas, on behalf of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

Three weeks ago, a van, allegedly speeding along The Reddings, swerved to avoid a car pulling out of the drive and crashed into a bus stop, 40metres from the development site, illustrating the safety issue in The Reddings.  It is a busy road, especially at peak times: a major route for parents taking children to school, a bus route, and an ambulance cut-through to avoid A40 congestion; it is a long straight road, resulting in many cars speeding well over 30mph. The existing building pre-dates public pavements, and this application proposes three closely-spaced drives exiting onto a fast and busy road with no pavement to act as a buffer and provide visibility.  The neighbours on either side have confirmed that they will not reduce the height of their fences as detailed in the revised plan.  Visibility splays are very poor here, less than 30 metres, in addition to which any large car or van parked in an adjacent drive will totally obscure the view, so cars will have to ‘stick out’ to see if the road is clear.  The site layout, proximity to the roundabout, and busy road make it almost certain that cars will enter the driveways forward, and have to reverse out in the face of oncoming traffic – so with no warning or visibility, cars will be pulling out in front of oncoming traffic with potentially fatal results.  The revised plan fails to address the fundamental problems;  it may comply with the rules, but the rules need to be applied in the situational context.  If only two houses were proposed, there would be space for a turning circle with appropriate positioning, addressing many safety concerns.  Local knowledge is being ignored, and we have seen recently in Kensington Borough the devastating effects that can arise where local warnings are dismissed.  One of the 48 objection letters powerfully sums up local concerns, describing the incident where the van demolished the bus stop, used to pick up and drop off school children.  The writer had previously witnessed the aftermath a child being run over in Reddings Road some years ago, and states that having worked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

195.

17/01347/FUL Naunton Park Pavilion, Asquith Road pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01347/FUL

Location:

Naunton Park Pavilion, Naunton Park

Proposal:

To allow the function room to be used as a tea shop (A1 use) to serve the local community

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

1

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, at Committee because the park is owned by CBC. 

 

Public Speaking

None

 

Member debate:

CH:  this is a good idea.

 

TO:  agrees.  These buildings were used as advice centres many years ago.  It is good to see it used again.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

196.

17/01412/FUL 57 Hewlett Road pdf icon PDF 134 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01412/FUL

Location:

57 Hewlett Road

Proposal:

Replacement of side window and rear door

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

CD introduced the application as above, at Committee because the applicant is a borough councillor.

 

Public Speaking

None

 

Member debate

None

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

197.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

There were none.