Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor McCloskey, Hobley, Barnes and Cooke.

Councillor Parsons and Savage were in attendance as substitutes.

There were none.

Councillor Seacome advised that he had visited 29 Unwin Road independently.

There were none.

Councillor Barrell requested a slight alteration to the 2 Bethesda Street application minutes as follows:

Another important issue which has not yet been brought up is that the church is a Grade II-listed asset, and even if the hall is not listed, it would seem that it is part of the setting of the heritage asset, and all sorts of things should be taken into consideration when looking at a heritage asset, the impact of the proposal on its significance, and the potential harm – this requires clear and convincing justification.

Subject to the above amendment the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd August were approved and signed as a correct record.

19/01506/FUL  - Planning application documents

19/01506/ADV -  Planning application documents

Officer Introduction

DO: Introduced the application, he explained that there were 2 applications to consider, one was a full planning application and one was for advertisement consent.  The application was before the committee as the council had a property interest in the site. He explained that the application relates to amendments to the existing façade of the retail unit that is currently occupied by River Island. The proposal was seeking to increase the height of the entrance way and the advertisement consent was for pieces of signage including the cash machines.

Public Speaking

Mr Elliott, agent representing Metro Bank

Was delighted that the officer’s were recommending approval of the application, he hoped the briefing note circulated gave a background to the proposal and highlighted the extent of engagement undertaken to reach the design. They felt it was in keeping with the modern shop front design in this part of the High Street but also sensitively integrated in order to respect the more traditional frontages.  He highlighted that Metro Bank was one of the first banks to open in the UK in 100 years and that they were bucking the trend as numerous other UK banks were closing their branches. The application would create 25 new local jobs, enhance local banking choice, benefit residents with increased opening hours, create significant lending to local businesses and SME’s and extensive community outreach and engagement programmes.

Member Debate

MC: Acknowledged that Metro Bank were bucking the trend when compared with other high streets bank and that it added something different to the current offering. Whilst the proposal looked modern he didn’t think the application was in keeping with the street scene and whilst it was subservient to the entrance of the arcade he would rather something more traditional.

SW: Preferred the appearance of the original Arcade and did not agree with the inspector’s decision, felt that the frontage didn’t fit with the street scene and that the glass wasn’t in keeping with the town centre.

VA: Felt that it didn’t look out of place because of John Lewis positioned opposite which had a similar glass frontage. However, felt that it would be a shame for the whole of the High Street to be glass fronted and questioned whether there was anything they could do to preserve the heritage of the High Street.

AH: Felt that it was in keeping with the rest of the façade, especially with John Lewis opposite and development should be encouraged more. He felt that such proposals made the High Street look lighter and cleaner.

JP: Was also opposed to the previous application regarding the main entrance to Regent Arcade and was concerned that as an elected representative they appeared to have less and less say over how the High Street looked due to the threat of planning appeals. He felt that John Lewis was stylish and of a different quality of design when compared with this application. He also noted that  Metro Bank were not in a particularly favourable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

Planning application documents

Officer Introduction

CD:  Explained that the application relates to 29 Unwin Road, specifically part of the existing rear garden. The application proposes to subdivide the existing plot and construct a single storey residential dwelling that would be accessed by Unwin Close. She advised that it was a revised application and the previous planning permission had been granted in May under delegated authority. The revision proposed to push the dwelling back by 2m to overcome land ownership issues.

The application was before the committee at the request of Councillor Britter due to the level of local interest.

Public Speaking

Mr Taylor, neighbour in objection

Was speaking on behalf of the residents of Unwin Close who were unanimous in objecting to the planning application. He noted that Unwin Close is a small development different from the surrounding area as it is built of Cotswold Stone and that the council were insistent that the houses were built as such. He explained that it was portioned from the rest of the area by a large 2m hedge and several attempts in the past had been made to gain access to Unwin Close through this hedge, however, the Council had been very proactive in stopping this. This could be evidenced by the redundant dropped kerb. He felt that by approving the application the committee would be going against previous planning policy.

His main concerns were the fact that Unwin Close is a narrow road and just allows the passing of two cars. It serves as an overspill car park for Unwin Road when it is full of cars and commercial vehicles. It is also used as a turning point for vehicles many of which are vans which are driven at speed. He highlighted that there had also been occasions where the refuse collectors had not been able to get their vehicle down the close and had to move the bins by hand. He felt that this planning application would exacerbate this problem. Furthermore, there were concerns that commercial vehicles would be parked on the frontage of this new development or in the road.  His main concern was the fact that the owner of 29 Unwin Road had annexed land belonging to Gloucester Highways and had destroyed mature trees in order to facilitate access to his property. He felt that by approving the application the committee would be turning a blind eye to the land encroachment which sets a precedent for future applications. He noted that Gloucester Highways had stated that should planning permission be refused they would initiate proceedings to reclaim their land.

Mr Ranford, agent in support

Reiterated that the application was a resubmission of a recently approved planning application and the requirement for the re-submission purely related to the land ownership matter. He explained that the client had made contact with the highways authority and was advised that it was under the client’s ownership, however, a subsequent land registry search identified that it was still under the ownership of the county highways authority.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Planning application documents  

Officer Introduction

DO: Introduced the application, he explained that the Conservation Area Notification was to prune a Hazel in the rear garden of 1 Moorend Street, a property situated within the Central Conservation Area. It had been brought before the Committee because a Senior Tree Officer at the Council was the applicant. No objections had been received in relation to the application.

Vote on officer recommendation that no objection is raised to the Conservation Area Notification.

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT