Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Allen and Councillor Clark.

The legal officer for the meeting explained that members had received correspondence directly from the agent in relation to application 23/01424/FUL & LBC Glenfall House.  He confirmed that this did not represent a breach of planning regulation.  He noted that members who had read the email had acknowledged the communication to the agent and explained that the decision has not been pre-determined and would be made with no bias and an open mind.  He concluded that all members had now received the communication as it formed part of the public report on the application.

Councillor Baker declared a pre-determined position on application 23/01424/FUL & LBC Glenfall House and confirmed that he would leave the meeting during discussion and decision on this item.

Councillor Andrews visited 6c, and was familiar with 6b.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 August were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item; the Ward Member.

Councillor Day as Ward Member addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The proposed transformation of the temporary license granted in 2017 to a permanent license reflects the Council’s failure to identify less harmful permanent sites to meet need and fulfil the Council’s responsibilities.

-       Located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) the original permission considered that permanent consent would cause permanent harm to the landscape.

-       The application does not meet the standards required by policy and does not include the addition of a temporary swimming pool or the 1m+ high fence on Mill Lane.  Retrospectively granting planning permission would send a negative message to those who have complied with the roles.

-       All public comments received object to the scheme and issues continue to be raised relating to the site in 2024.

-       Overflow pipe continues to discharge into the water drain on Mill Lane, impacting those who use the lane.

-       Damage carried out to mature hedgerows surrounding the site and very bright and intrusive lighting at night impact both neighbouring properties and local wildlife.

-       It would be appropriate to grant a further temporary extension to permission and the council make serious efforts to identify suitable sites within the borough that do comply with planning policy.

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

-       Granting retrospective permission would not set a precedent that further properties could be built on this land as the on-balance recommendation is based on the specifics of the case.

-       The swimming pool is not included within the planning permission so granting permission would not extend to this structure.

-       Permitted development allows a boundary to be erected up to 2m when it is not adjacent to highway and there is no control on the design.

-       The permission limits the site to 2 pitches and a specified number of caravans so any further extension into the larger pitch would require additional planning permission.

-       To meet the need identified in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) in 2022 4 pitches need to be identified in the borough in addition to the current site.

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

-       Issues identified with lighting is a condition to resolve within the application and will be managed by Planning Enforcement.

-       The outflow pipe has been addressed previously by Environmental Health and the water was judged to be clear. 

-       The Council has badly failed to identify suitable traveller sites within the borough which needs to be addressed within future planning.

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

For: 7

Against: 0

Abstentions: 2

Permitted subject to conditions.

Planning application documents

Listed building application documents  

Councillor Baker left the chamber.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report as published.  He noted that a recommendation to refuse had been issued primarily due the size of the extension which would compete visually with the listed building and not be subservient to it. Two further reasons for refusal related to insufficient details regarding drainage and a lack of financial contribution towards the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).  He noted that a water management proposal has been submitted but there has not been adequate time to review this proposal, and a signed unilateral has been received for the SAC but the legal team have not had time to review and the financial contribution has not yet cleared.  He explained that should members be minded to grant permission the final resolution of these two issues could be delegated to officers.

There were two public speakers on the item; the agent on behalf of the applicant and a Ward Member.

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

-       The applicants have employed a team of highly experienced individuals, including an alternative energy expert, an award-winning architect and a heritage expert, to sensitively restore Glenfall House to it’s original residential use and put it on a sustainable footing.

-       They have worked with officers at every stage and listened to feedback but this has been a protracted and challenging process, particularly due to the changes in Conservation Officers.

-       The main house improvements, garden improvements, demolition of later additions, principle of development and the garage and store have all been agreed. 

-       Four different versions of the proposed new outbuildings have been designed which incorporate the opinion of changing officers’ but agreement has not been reached.  The first two officers believed that the existing arrangement already competed with the listed building.  The new design has a smaller footprint than the main house and existing outbuildings, has been reduced to one and a half storeys, and in the opinion of the heritage expert is in proportion to the main house.

-       Officers were asked to consider whether the benefits of architectural and visual cohesion, enhancement of the heritage asset, sustainability, landscape, ecology and tourism gains balance out the harm of the proposal submitted as identified in the report.

Councillor Day as Ward Member addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The application will help preserve and enhance Glenfall House and the income from the holiday lets will help fund the maintaining of the listed property.

-       The 5 holiday lets will have a profitable impact to Cheltenham’s economy, creating jobs and tourist spending without a loss of residential properties.

-       Further benefits include the addition of green measures, a 22% habitat biodiversity gain, a 264% hedgerow gain, insect -friendly lighting, and an agreed financial contribution to mitigate any impact on the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC.

-       Most public comments have been supportive, including from a member of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published. 

There were three public speakers on the item; the objector, the applicant and a Ward Member.

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

-       The original planning consent for a fence of wooden construction with a height of 1.40m recognised the nature of the area and crescent but this has been spoilt by the overbearing erection due to the height and quality of the materials used.

-       Concerns have been lodged by a number of residents who ask that the fence be replaced by domestic fencing appropriate to the area in adherence with the original planning application.

The applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The material used is a wood look composite material that will not fade, rot or rust, and in appearance is similar to that of a painted fence.

-       There are a range of fence types and heights on Pitville Crescent Lane, Prestbury Road and surrounding streets.  The fence height matches the original height of the fence on the southern side of the garage and property which was removed to improve the line of site down Pitville Lane and reduce risk of road traffic accidents.

-       The property is on a busy corner that is used to access Albert Road and Pitville School, which causes privacy issues for the downstairs areas of the home.

Councillor Tooke as Ward Member submitted a written response to the committee and made the following points:

-       The original planning conditions were clear, specific and correct and specified a timber construction of 1.4m without concrete pillars.  There have been no material change to the context since the application.  It is important that the integrity of the planning process and the authority of the planning officer and committee are upheld.

-       The previous fence was low and subservient to the existing building blending harmoniously with the property and surrounding areas.

-       The height of the newly constructed fence exceeds the threshold that requires planning consent and is highly visible, disrupting the overall aesthetic harmony of the neighbourhood.

-       The council has committed to enhancing biodiversity in the planning process and the Cheltenham Climate Change Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that all proposals need to protect existing and enhance future biodiversity value, this should be considered with due regard to proportionality and the scale of development but in all cases high quality, resilient and contextually appropriate ecological and green infrastructure should be the outcome of design.  The plastic composite materials are neither environmentally friendly or sympathetic to the natural environment.

-       The overwhelming consensus of public comments are opposed to the fence with 14 objections from households in the neighbourhood.

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

-       On Planning View only a close inspection revealed that it wasn’t wood and it was felt that the property does not offer privacy to the occupants without a tall fence.

-       There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published. 

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

-       In the future it may be beneficial to offer owner occupiers in the area of work the opportunity to buy into the work being carried out.

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

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Permitted.

These were noted for information.

There were none.