Agenda and draft minutes

There were none.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended site 6a during Planning View:

·         Cllr Frank Allen

·         Cllr Paul Baker

·         Cllr Adrian Bamford

·         Cllr Garth Barnes

·         Cllr Jan Foster

·         Cllr Tony Oliver

·         Cllr Simon Wheeler

Councillor Clark declared that she had visited 6a but had not entered the property.

Councillor Andrews confirmed he had visited 6a, 6d and 6e and is familiar with 6c.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd January 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning Application Documents - 24/01762/FUL

Planning Application Documents - 24/01763/FUL

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published and provided the following updates:

• An addendum to the applicant’s economic impact statement had been received that day. This had been independently reviewed and the findings of the review set out in the update report circulated to Members earlier in the day.
• The reason for refusal for both applications should reference section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 rather than section 16.
• The Drainage Officer has reviewed the recently submitted drainage strategy schemes and has raised continuing concerns about the high-level drainage strategy as it does not show the connection to the main public surface water drain.
• The Tree Officer has raised no overriding concern with the individual building scheme. Tree Officer comments had been received that day for application 24/01763/FUL. The Tree Officer recommended that should Members be minded to approve the development, a condition be introduced that installation of the screw pile foundations be carried out under arboricultural supervision to minimise impact on tree roots, with reports submitted to Gloucestershire Highways (Trees section) and CBC Tree Officers. He also highlighted that the four plane trees outside the proposed development form nearly half of the trees that make up the avenue on the Promenade and are considered to be one if not the primary arboriculture feature in the town centre. The proposed development should have no direct impact on these trees as long as safeguards and conditions are in place and future tree works are managed carefully.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector and the applicant.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

• He was representing the Cheltenham Civic Society and works as a Land Economist and chartered town planner. They are opposed to this development in principle so did not address the applications separately.
• The officers’ report carefully weighs the evidence against established policy and from a range of experts, including the conclusion of the Independent Planning Inspector and advises that the applications be refused. It reinforces the consistent decisions taken previously by the planning committee which were right to resist development that would destroy the setting of fine Grade II* listed buildings, damage the Conservation Area and reduce the attraction of the town to visitors and businesses.
• It is essential to safeguard Cheltenham’s heritage. The Council describes Cheltenham as Britain’s most complete Georgian town. Its architectural heritage and beauty underpin its success, supporting the town’s economy and future prosperity; they attract visitors, shoppers and festival goers; they appeal to dynamic businesses; and they improve the quality of life of locals and visitors alike. Cheltenham’s fine buildings and heritage are important not only for their intrinsic value but also for the wider contribution they make and must be protected.
• The damage the proposals would cause have been unanimously highlighted by national organisations like Historic England and the Georgian Group; local bodies like the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel; and council officers. All agree that these are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

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

For: 11

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to permit subject to conditions.

Item deferred – meeting TBC

Planning Application Documents

Listed Building Application Documents

This item was deferred.

Planning Application Documents

Listed Building Application Documents

The Conservation Officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       Fire-rated doors had not been required by building regulations during the original conversion.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to grant planning and listed building consent:

For: 11

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to grant planning and listed building consent.

Planning Application Documents

Listed Building Application Documents

The Conservation Officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to grant planning and listed building consent subject to conditions:

For: 11

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted unanimously to grant planning and listed building consent subject to conditions.

The committee noted the appeals update.

There were none.