Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Oliver, Councillor Chelin attended as a substitute.

Councillor Barnes declared a non pecuinary interest in the Oakley Farm application.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th February 2024.

The minutes were approved as an accurate record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

The public speaker in objection addressed the committee and made the following points:

- The proposed four storey building is in close proximity to Honeybourne Gate will have a significant detrimental impact on the apartments which face the site.

- As there are many housebound people in Honeybourne Gate looking out of their windows is the only way that they can engage with the outside world and this application will have a huge impact on them.

- There is no car parking facility on the application site. The regulations state that where parking is not provided within the curtilage the approach route should be safe for everyone including older and disabled people.

- The lack of parking makes the proposed apartments almost uninhabitable for older and disabled people.

- The proposal would be out of keeping with the conservation area and have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed St Marys Cemetery Chapel.

- There is a need for more housing in the area and a much reduced development on this site would be acceptable.

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

- This is a brownfield site.

- The committee has granted permission on a previous site that was smaller than the proposal.

- The effect on the view for Honeybourne Gate is not a reason to refuse the application.

- The agent has conducted additional surveys due to highways demand.

- Highways have made the conclusion that there would not be an impact on safety.

- Redevelopment of a redundant brownfield site is surely preferable over greenfield sites.

Councillor Willingham as a local ward member was then asked to address the committee and made the following points:

- He wished to raise several procedural issues Policy SD12 point 9 of the JCS the viability report has not been made available for scrutiny.

- There has also been no Human Rights Act consideration, the authority is also a potential beneficiary as the committee owns part of the land and granted permission for the billboard. If objectors ask questions this is not good optics for the Council.

- The Council has failed in due regard to the Grampian condition.

- The situation regarding parking cannot be sorted due to a difference of opinion between Gloucestershire County Council and Cheltenham Borough Council.

- Changing the parking zone to zone 12 will cost public money, the developer should be asked to pay for this rather than the County Council.

- This building will block the view of St Marys, this application is such a mess.

- Parking is a huge issue the area is currently over subscribed by approximately 400%, he reiterated that the developer should be made to pay.

- There is a danger that people will try and reverse onto a B road which could cause accidents.

- The parking survey was done when the students were on holiday,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report.

There were 3 public speakers on the application one objector and two ward councillors.

The public speaker in objection made the following points:

-       Site gradients are not just an issue for vehicles, they are also and issue for cyclists and the elderly.

-       56% of the access road is of an unreasonable gradient this does not assist Cheltenham with the Net Zero Policy as the road will be steep people will have to use a car.

-       At the appeal the inspector stated that it is a balancing exercise as it is acknowledged that Cheltenham needs more homes but needs to be fair to all.  The application needs to be safe and permeable and it was shown to be safe at appeal which the applicant disputes.

-       With regard to Condition 13 there needed to be the removal of perceived ambiguity, it has been made clear and unambiguous which should be sufficient.

-       The condition should be aligned with the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets.  There is lack of clarity in the new condition wording with regard to safety.

-       To quote the inspector “the requirement of the condition is fundamental” and without this the application should be refused.

-       National planning was only approved under strict conditions.

-       There is no ambiguity in the original condition.

Councillor Chidley as the Ward Councillor addressed the committee and made the following comments:

-       To recap, the original application was rejected by the Cheltenham Borough Council Planning committee, however the inspectorate made a different decision.

-       The residents of Battledown want the application to be the best it can be.

-       The Council must be diligent, the gradient is too steep as the parameters are between 1/20-1/12 for up to 30 meters.  This is not acceptable.

-       A gradient of 1/12 is safe for wheelchair users with assistance.

-       On the current plans 56% of the application is at a higher gradient than that.

-       The access to the bungalows is too steep to get up a ramp (and indeed get a ramp installed) let alone get into the property.

-       The steepness of the gradient will make people take to their cars rather than walk.

-       The development that has been suggested will damage trees.

-       The wording of the condition must remain as it is, the applicant is the only person who finds it ambiguous.

Councillor Babbage as the Ward Councillor then addressed the committee and made the following comments:

-       The site is well known to many.

-       Outline permission has been granted which reluctantly has to be accepted.

-       The inspector imposed gradients for good reason, he reiterated that the gradient would be difficult for pedestrians and cyclists.

-       If the original application had all the information the committee may have made a different decision.

-       He urged the committee to reject the scare attempt from the applicant and reject the condition.

The matter then went to Member questions and the responses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were 2 speakers that wished to speak on the item – one Ward Councillor and a County Councillor.

The Ward Councillor addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The applicant has worked with residents to improve the plans, including traffic and sustainability.

-       There will be a three metre path between King George 5^th and Stoneville Crescent.

-       There have been reports to the police with regard to motorbikes in the park.

-       Increased parking for sports events will be low to non-existent.

-       Complaints of anti-social behaviour relate to people trying to access the park.

The Ward Councillor then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Down stream of the application site have experienced sewage flooding.

-       There is no affordable housing on the site despite the forecast profit.

-       There have been 2 applications before the committee at this meeting that have no provision for affordable housing.

The responses to Member questions were as follows:

-       Sewage and water were considered in the original application.

-       the viability assessment cover what profit can be gained from the development.

-       A development is allowed to make a profit and the profit should be between 15-20%.

-       There will be a viability review if there is more profit after the properties are sold.

There was no Member debate and the mater then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 11 - Permit

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were  no Member questions and no debate.

The matter then went to the vote to permit:

UNANIMOUS – Permit.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report.

There were no Member questions.

There was no Member debate.

The matter went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

UNANIMOUS - permit

Update on the appeals.

Appeal details were noted for information.

There were none.