Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Councillor Mutton.

There were none.

Councillor Oliver visited North Place car park.

Councillor Andrews visited 6a and 6c.

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 30 May and 13 June 2024.

Minutes of the meetings held on 30 May and 13 June 2024 were approved and signed as a true record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

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

-       The planning officer did not have that level of detail as Members were concerned about the quality of the render that would be used, as they had observed similar materials deteriorating quickly in other properties. However, the planning officer explained that through condition 3 this could be looked at and details shared with the Chair and Vice Chair.

-       A question was asked to the applicant whether the owners of the houses that had been purchased could be approached to have works carried out simultaneously at their own expense. However, the applicant was not present and no response was received.

-       The planning officer explained that they did not have the level of detail regarding the render and cladding as to whether it would have the potential to make the properties too hot.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were raised:

-       Member highlighted that this is the second stage as properties have already had this work completed in Dinas Road and that residents in Gwernant Road have been chasing when this work will happen and that the member will support this application.

-       In Hesters way a number of properties appear to have had this work done and been finished in the same way and works well.

The legal officer reminded the committee that they should not duplicate existing regulatory regimes, such as those governing the safety of cladding and fire ratings. The role is as local planning authority and the applications need to be addressed in that context.

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

For: Unanimous

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on this item.

There were no member questions or debate.

The Chair clarified that the application was at committee as Cheltenham Borough Council owns the property.

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

For: Unanimous

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item; an objector and the applicant in support.

The Chair of the Cheltenham Civic Society in objection addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The Cheltenham Civic Society supports the principle of redevelopment of the site for housing. Although this scheme is below the standard for a town like Cheltenham. Objections relate to the detail of the proposal.

-       The site is a prominent location, important in the central conservation area and is surrounded by several impressive listed buildings.

-       The proposal fails to comply with S72 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Area Act 1990 as it does not pay special attention to desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The plans fails to make reference to neighbouring buildings such as the Grade II* listed St Margaret’s Terrace. Instead the proposed development has lacklustre architecture, poor proportions, cheap detailing, weak terraced housing and ugly, monolithic block of flats. The scheme could be built anywhere and has no reference to the town’s design history.

-       The density of the development is too low at 114dph when compared to other developments around the town centre. This site should be developed with buildings at least five storeys high adding to Cheltenham’s housing stock, improving the provision of affordable housing, enhancing the profitability of the scheme and improving the architectural setting of this important site. Unable to see why Cheltenham Borough Council’s minimum threshold of 20% affordable housing cannot be met.

-       Sustainability is not at the heart of the proposal as it should have been.

-       The scheme will be dominated by moving and parked vehicles. There is insufficient parking provision for future residents, which will impact neighbouring streets. Parking should have been provided in an under croft as seen in other developments in the town.

-       The strip between the rows of houses may look attractive. However, it presents problems of continual maintenance. The boundary with Northfield Passage is also poorly defined and will suffer similar problems.

-       More trees are needed, including street trees within the scheme, a characteristic feature of Cheltenham and a requirement of the NPPF. Instead one existing tree in St Margaret’s Road is to be removed against the tree officers advice.

The applicant then addressed the committee in support and made the following points:

-       The applicant introduced himself as the Managing Director of Wavensmere Homes who co-own the North Place car park with BBS capital.

-       The development proposal is for 147 dwellings, comprising of 75 three bedroom townhouses and 72 one and two bedroom apartments. This diverse housing mix is designed to meet the needs of the local population.

-       The design has evolved through extensive feedback from stakeholders and consultees. The site has a history of unfulfilled plans, with the Council first earmarking it for sale in 2008. This has resulted in learning from this and the application has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Appeal updates for information.

Appeal details were noted for information.

There were none.