Cheltenham Borough Council
Cheltenham Borough Council

Hello, please sign in to your account. New customer? Creating a new account only takes moments.

find our main contact details and opening hours or find our location.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

Items
No. Item

198.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillors Seacome, Thornton, Collins and Oliver.

 

199.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

17/01266/FUL 102 Prestbury Road

Councillor Fisher – has known the proprietor of the business for many years – will leave the Chamber.

 

200.

Declarations of independent site visits

Minutes:

None.

 

201.

Public Questions

Minutes:

None.

202.

Minutes of last meeting pdf icon PDF 357 KB

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21st September 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Barnes welcomed two new members to the planning team – Joe Seymour (Senior Planner) and Matt Haslam (Senior Urban Designer).

 

203.

Planning/Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent/Advertisement Applications, Applications for Lawful Development Certificate and Tree related applications – see Main Schedule

204.

17/01266/FUL 102 Prestbury Road pdf icon PDF 438 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01266/FUL

Location:

102 Prestbury Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Construction of 30 new dwellings with associated infrastructure and parking following the demolition of existing commercial buildings

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

Conditions

 

MP introduced the application as above, saying that officers have worked closely with the applicants to secure improvements to the lay-out, reducing the number of dwellings from 35 to 30 units, with three affordable housing units included.  Additional information was provided by County Highways and Leading Local Flood Authority in response to officer concerns, and it is now felt that the proposal is in line with local and national policy and that permission should be granted, subject to an  S106 agreement regarding affordable housing, education and libraries, and a number of conditions.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Lillywhite, in view of the potential impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Ms Catherine Sheppard, applicant, in support

Introduced herself as Planning Manager at Newland Homes, a Gloucestershire-based business, presenting plans for redevelopment of 100-102 Prestbury Road, with an officer recommendation to permit homes and associated works.  This recommendation follows extensive discussions with planning officers since the application was submitted at the end of June.  The number of dwellings has been reduced from 35 to 30, with a mix of styles from one-bedroomed apartments to four-bedroomed houses, inspired by recently constructed houses in the area and offering a contemporary style.  As the site has been largely vacant for a number of years, and many of the on-site buildings have deteriorated, vacant building credit has been applied resulting in three affordable housing units.   Access from the adoptable highway to the site has previously been approved, and a recently signed agreement with Marchants Coaches allows associated works in the area to be carried out.  As CBC currently cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, these 30 homes will make a positive contribution on a site which at present makes no contribution – it is important that this brownfield site is given the opportunity to be developed. Newland Homes prides itself on understanding the locations in which it builds and developing sites which enhance an area and where people want to live.   Officers say the proposal will enhance to area, providing new homes on a brownfield site, to be enjoyed in by future and existing residents.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  on planning view, noted that this is a big site, currently an eyesore, though interesting to see cars and coaches on display.  This application in welcome, a nicely designed scheme in a sustainable location.  It is adjacent to the industrial unit – Marchants – which may operate anti-social hours of work, but conditions are included to manage this.  It is a creditable scheme, and is happy to support it.

 

SW:  is puzzled by Condition 16’s reference to glazing and ventilation for six of the 30 plots.  No-one will move into a house without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

205.

17/01380/FUL & LBC Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road pdf icon PDF 287 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01380/FUL & LBC

Location:

Lypiatt Lodge, Lypiatt Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

17/01380/FUL: Conversion of residential care home (Class C2) to 13no. apartments (Class C3) comprising 2no. one bed units and 11no. two bed units

17/01380/LBC:  Internal and external alterations to facilitate a conversion of residential care home to 13no. apartments

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit / Grant

Committee Decision:

Permit / Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

Letter from applicant

 

MP introduced the application as above, to convert a GII listed building in a prominent location .  Officers consider the scheme to be in accordance with local and national policy and therefore recommend it be permitted, with conditions.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, due to concerns about the loss of the care home and employment. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

None. 

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  asked for this to come to Planning Committee as not long ago, another planning application for this property was submitted and we were told that the facility was very much needed in the town, that Cheltenham has a shortage of this type of care. The care home employs 20 or so people, so is also important from an employment point of view – skilled people in this type of business are much needed in the town.  There is also the question of the people who live there; permission was given to extend the premises, make it more comfortable for the elderly residents.  Officers were originally reluctant to allow the alterations, but Members felt it was the right thing to do.  Now these residents will have to be found somewhere else to live.  Has concerns about the loss of the loss of a facility we can’t afford to lose.  Planning structures and systems do little to support these people; it is a tragedy, and needs to be highlighted.  Vulnerable people will be evicted so that that building can be turned into flats – the building is clearly worth more as flats than as a care home.  Was elected as a councillor because he cares about people.  Can this application be refused on loss of employment or loss of a facility needed in the town?

 

LS:  BF makes some good points, and would be interested to know from officers what consideration can be given to these, in particular the disruption and adverse consequences of residents being rehoused.  Can we give any weight to this as a Committee?

 

AH:  is not for or against this proposal, but comes from a long line of carers and there are some issues of which councillors need to be aware.  There has been a trend in recent years to turn larger houses into residential homes, but most of these are not fit for purpose, especially listed buildings – truck pulling and lifts are required, which damage the fabric of the building.  This recommendation could potentially be looking at/encouraging the developer to build a brand new nursing home which is fit for purpose.  On the flip side, moving residents from here  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

206.

1701521/FUL 32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01521/FUL

Location:

32 Noverton Lane, Prestbury

Proposal:

Replacement of single storey side/rear sunroom and internal alterations (retrospective)

View:

View

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

HDJ introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Payne, due to the potential harm it will cause to the the neighbour’s amenity – being overbearing and causing loss of light.  The sun room has been built with a 300mm parapet wall, and this application seeks to reduce that to a 28mm coping stone.  Officers believe the impact on the neighbouring property will be negligible, and that the reduction of the parapet will improve the appearance of the extension.  The recommendation is to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor Payne, in objection

Members on planning view will have seen structure and may have wondered why he asked for it to come to Planning Committee.  This application has been fraught with problems all the way through. To give some context: the applicant bought the bungalow, made some modifications, including a new sun room following demolition of previous conservatory.  The plans for sun room were not shared with neighbour, which was sad, and regarding the design, the architect ignored the PD restrictions on the property.  The neighbour contacted JP when the east wall was being constructed higher and higher.JP  visited the site, took photos, talked with planning officers, who confirmed that there had been a breach of permitted development rights, and that the neighbour needed to talk to the enforcement team.  JP advised the neighbour, who did so.  Planning enforcement advice was a recommendation to read the government’s pamphlet on party walls – even though this not a party wall matter.  They spoke with enforcement officers who were not able to inspect the site due to resource issues – enforcement is not a quick fix.  Building work continued; the original drawings show what was proposed, which is not what has been built here.  The neighbours were anxious the light to their conservatory would be blocked off  - unfortunately, Members were unable to witness this on Planning View.  JP then wrote to the enforcement team, expressing his and the neighbour’s concerns and asking them to intervene; they visited that day, advised that the building had breached PD, and said the applicant should submit a new planning application.  A new application was submitted but the drawings were wrong and rejected by planning officers.  The second drawings were correct, showing the relationship between sun room and conservatory.  Officers don’t agree, but JP and the neighbours still feel the extension is overbearing.  There are always winners and losers in planning - in this case, the applicant knows the neighbour is unhappy, and their neighbour knows that the applicant has used the system to build a bigger extension than permitted.  Would Members consider deferring their decision on this application, to see if any sort of compromise can be reached; what is proposed in inadequate and there must be a better solution.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

207.

17/01609/FUL 99-102 London Road pdf icon PDF 231 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/01609/FUL

Location:

99 - 101 London Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of new four storey building to provide 8no. flats (7no. two bed and 1no. one bed) following demolition of existing building

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

8

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above; the scheme will also include landscaping and car parking.  The existing building is currently trading as ATS Euromaster, a tyre and exhaust business.The plan originally submitted was for five units and a ground floor retail units, but following concerns from local residents, the retail element was omitted and the number of flats increased.  The proposal is in line with local and national planning guidance, and is recommended for permission with a number of conditions.  It is at committee at the request of Councillors Baker and Harvey, in view of the level of concern among local residents. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  has mixed views about this proposal.  Aesthetically, it will be an improvement to the street scene, on an important route into town.  Also,  Cheltenham needs more housing for local people, which this scheme provides.  The omission of the conflicting commercial use in a residential area is also welcome.  However, some concerns remain, in particular the loss of employment.  The current use is sui generis, but provides six full-time jobs in this location.  These are good jobs, but the sui generis classification is not protected, so loss of employment isn’t a consideration.  Hopes that this will be changed in the new Local Plan, offering more protection to more people.  Is pleased with the work the case officer has done on this scheme, from the pre-app stage to the final version – she has done an excellent job. The developer understands that the road at the back is unmade, and it will have to be photographed and returned to its present state when the construction work is finished.  This scheme is a major achievement, and the developer should be congratulated.  It will certainly cause huge disruption during the demolition and construction phase, but realises that this is something residents will just have to accept.  The conditions should take care of all concerns, and will therefore, on balance, support the proposal.  Can planning enforcement officers please make sure that the developer works in a balanced way?  Thanks to Michelle Payne for all her work on this scheme.

 

BF:  supports PB.  This is the second application tonight which will involve people losing their jobs and livelihoods.  We shouldn’t have a system which makes some jobs less important than others – they all provide people with the livelihoods and finding another job can be a lengthy process. 

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT 

 

 

208.

17/00887/LBC 42 London Road pdf icon PDF 63 KB

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00887/LBC

Location:

42 London Road

Proposal:

Repair of stone stair treads to basement steps

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Grant

Committee Decision:

Grant

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced the application for repair works to exterior steps of this listed building, by slicing new stone in.  The conservation officer is satisfied with the proposals.  The application is at Committee because the building is owned by CBC.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

AH:  this applications seems cut and dried; there is nothing to say.

 

CH:  hopes that the greenery on the wall can be preserved.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

12 in support – unanimous

GRANT

 

209.

Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision

Minutes:

None.