Agenda and minutes

There were none.

There were none.

The site visits were as follows:  

The Members that attended planning view visited Ski Tyres – other site visits were as follows:

Cllr McCLoskey visited Ski Tryres

Cllr Bamford visited Selkirk Street

Cllr Andrews visited Ski Tyres and Selkirk Street

Cllr Payne visited Ski Tyres

Cllr Oliver visited Selkirk St

Cllr Nelson visited Ski Tyres

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th January 2023.

Minutes of the meeting held in January were approved.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were 2 public speaker on the application – one in objection and the agent in support.  Councillor Tooke was due to attend the committee, however due to ill health could not attend and his speech was then read by democratic services.

The objector made the following points:

·         Cheltenham is known as a spacious town with glimpses of gardens and trees.

·         The application was until recently a well maintained garden.

·         Initially there was no light report

·         The application  was turned down in 2003.

·         It will be an over development of the site

·         There will be barely a meter space between the proposed building and number 18.

·         It will have no view from the rear and no off road parking.

·         It will not be in keeping with the surrounding properties.

The agent on behalf of the applicant then made the following points:

·         The applicant has lived on the street for some time and they have submitted the plan in preparation for their retirement on a street they enjoy living in.

·         The level of local animosity for the application has been stressful for the applicant, but they have sought to work with the Council’s planning officers and to take into account residents concerns.

·         The proposal makes good use of a site within a sustainable location in the PUA.

·         The contemporary design is of high quality and supported by the Civic Society, the revisions made during the process address the initial concerns of the architects panel.

·         The amenity of neighbours is not harmed.

·         There is no danger to highway safety.

·         The proposal is compliant with  the climate change SPD and includes a number of renewable technologies such as solar panels and an air source heat pumps.

·         Care was taken from the outset of the design process to minimise any potential impact on adjacent neighbours.

·         Further amendments have been made to take into concern of the neighbours.  There has been a chartered surveyor appointed to undertake the assessment over the potential daylight and sunlight impact, that report concluded that there was no adverse impact.

·         The planning officers report covers the matters raised and sets out why there is no reason for planning permission to be refused.

·         Objectively speaking this is a high quality scheme, incorporating renewable technology that makes good use of an under utilised plot.

·         It is within the principal planning urban area and has been deliberately designed to minimise any potential impact on adjacent properties.

The speech of the Ward Councillor was then read out by a member of democratic services.  He made the following points:

·         He believed that the documents had been prepared by disinterested professionals, an independent architect, a former chief town planner (from another county) and a leading light consultancy on light and planning issues.

·         The planning department has not visited impacted neighbouring properties and has made a “presumption in favour” of this supposedly sustainable development.

·         They have ignored the key points of SPD 2009 with regard to the impact on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report. 

There were three speakers on the item, an objector, the applicants agent and one of the Ward Councillors for the area.

The objector made the following points:

·         The proposed properties will cause a lack of privacy.  Where the windows are due to be are contrary to the Cheltenham SPD.

·         Obscured glass in the windows of the first floor do not help with the privacy problem.

·         The proposed pump will be noisy and the sound will travel.

·         The application is over development of the site.

·         The properties with their fronts on Grove Street will not have enough space for parking for two cars.

·         The application shows no respect fpr neighbouring properties.

·         There have been a sparse amount of complaints against the application by the 4 or 5 properties that will be effected due to the occupiers not having English as their first language.

·         There have been no visits to the site except for Cllr. Willingham.

·         The request was that the application be refused as it has not been sufficiently investigated.

The agent on behalf of the applicant spoke and made the following points:

·         The principle of the application was to relocate the business and staff elsewhere including the commercial base. The street will no longer be snarled up with lorry drivers.

·         There will now be less large vehicles and less commercial activity and noise.

·         The applicant has taken into account all the comments that have been made and has worked with them.

·         The application is for town houses which are a simple and authentic design.

·         The residential amenity will be improved by this application.

·         Frosted windows will ensure privacy.

·         The Historical Society has commented on the design saying that it is an excellent design.

·         The revised development will give visual enhancement and enhance the bio diversity of the area.

Councillor Willingham as Ward Councillor for the area spoke and made the following points:

·         He explained the Cllr Atherstone, the other Ward Councillor for this application was unable to attend due to ill  health and that she would have speaking in favour of the application as Cabinet Member for Housing.

·         There is no dispute in the principle of the application.

·         A concern of the residents is that the rear first floor room if used as a living room will cause a loss of privacy to the surrounding properties.

·         The application is in breach of SL1.

·         Planting would be a pertinent thing to do as a condition.

·         Highways have not responded to the request with regard to yellow lines and parking.

·         Privacy is a big issue with the application there has been a public duty assessment but no human rights assessment, everyone has a right to peaceful surroundings.

·         There is a middle ground to be found in this application.

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

·         The chimneys are just a design feature.

·         Solar panels could be included as a condition.  

·         The charging point for the cars is 7kw.

·         Gloucestershire highways are satisfied that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report.

The matter went to Member questions and the responses were as follows:

·         The drainage officer did not suggest that there should be rain water harvesting from the pavilion.

·         The amount of water that drains off could be quite vast.

·         There was no mention of irrigation when planning permission was granted.

The Chair stated at this point that he would like to go for a deferral.  The planning officer explained that this is a variation to an existing grant of permission.

·         The approved storage is out of site but not undercover.

·         The scheme should be supplemented by rain water harvesting.

As the Chair was minded to defer the Legal Officer intervened and stated that the application was to vary conditions not to re open development and how the scheme works.  Deferral will not change what the application is for.

The question was asked if it was possible to take this application as a learning lesson that any public place should have a mechanism in place to deal with rainwater harvesting to which the planning officer responded that there is rainwater harvesting in place, the request came from the drainage officer.

One Member made the point that the tanks are not moveable with water in and they are a bit unsightly, these matters really need to be considered for future applications.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

UNANIMOUS - permitted

Appeals were noted as published.

The Chair wished the committee to note that Liam would be leaving in the next few months and wished to pass on his thanks for all his work and expressed that he was sorry to see him go.

He then went on to talk about the planning peer review and urged Members to reply to the invite and to engage with the planning peer review.