Agenda and draft minutes

There were none.

Councillor Frank Allen was appointed as Vice Chair of the Committee.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended site 7a and 7c during Planning View:

- Councillor Barnes

- Councillor Bamford

- Councillor Clark

- Councillor Foster

- Councillor Oliver

- Councillor Wheeler

Councillor Steinhardt declared that he had visited sites 7a, 7b and 7c, and was familiar with 7d.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th April 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 April were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector, and the ward member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

• Representing the concerns of residents from Randolph Close and St Judes Walk. Whilst the report suggests that revisions have been made to address issues raised by residents, these do not go far enough or address the fundamental issues.
• The proposed block is 9.2m high and 47m long, standing at 5.2m higher that the existing single storey building. This existing building is already visible above our wall and level with our bedroom windows. As the building sits on elevated ground this will raise the property to 4m above surrounding properties. Even though the 21m rule has been adhered to due to the length and size of the property this will be of little significance.
• The report suggests the build is in keeping with the character of the development, but this is misleading as on the north side near residential homes where this building is proposed all buildings are single story or at a lower level to respect the lie of the land and residents nearby.
• Serious concerns remain about light pollution which have not been resolved in the report.
• There has been no attempt to soften the build with any form of screening. In contrast, a recent build at Leckhampton High sits comfortably in its location, surrounded by trees and with a flat eco-friendly roof. This report states that the lack of green credentials is unfortunate, but this should not be acceptable in 2025.
• The school’s heritage statement fails to acknowledge that a 200+ years old wall borders our homes.
• The new building will block sunlight into our homes during the winter months.
• When the owner of Alpha Schools visited our home to view the impact of the proposal, he was open to the suggestion of lowering the build. The Planning Officer also visited our home and acknowledged that the application will have a detrimental impact.
• The school has tried to raise support through emails and coffee mornings but only one response in support was submitted.
• Students will be vulnerable in this locality from the unsafe environment on the south side of the school.
• We do not believe this application complies with policies SD14 or SL1.
• We meant for this to be our forever home, which we have worked hard for. We deserve to feel safe and relaxed in our homes, not overshadowed by a dominating structure looming above us. This building does not sit comfortably in the proposed space. We, as residents, want St. Edwards to progress, provide better working environments, and keep students safe. But we strongly believe this can and should be achieved without ruining the lives and homes of neighbouring residents.
• We ask that this application be deferred so that meaningful discussions can take place, particularly around height, massing, and proximity to our family homes.

Councillor Harvey, as Ward Member, addressed the committee and made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning Application Documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• There are further buildings in the vicinity associated with CBC that have not been insulated, but the application represents the current phase of work.

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

• Insulation provided to properties within a Member’s ward had seen significant improvements. Some concern was raised that the outside of the insulation is a very thin scrim of hard material which can be easily damaged, but this was not seen as a reason to object.

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

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit.

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: the applicant, and the ward member.

The applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

• My wife and I want to improve our house, which had been empty for a considerable time before we bought it. Our plans will modernise the property and improve living conditions.
• The property has suffered condensation and damp, opening up and increasing the roof space will improve this issue.
• It is very popular to convert roof spaces in bungalows to increase room space but in order to do this for our property we need to increase the roof height. This is a modest increase rather than a full 2 storey extension.
• We are not increasing footprint and have been mindful of our neighbours’ privacy, opting not to put windows at the back of the extension. Instead, we have chosen roof lights placed at a distance as not to cause unacceptable loss of privacy.
• We will also be improving the landscape outside.
• Overall, we want to update the property and bring it in line with modern living standards to make it a suitable family-size home for now and the future. We have worked with the architect and local planning officer, who has considered our plans and recommended them for approval.

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

• This is the second application tonight that has taken no regard to the Climate Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This was introduced 3 years ago and at the heart of our planning process successful applicants should have taken the SPD into account. I’m disappointed that this has not been taken into account in officers’ recommendations tonight.
• I wasn’t allowed to circulate my reasons for refusal on legal advice.
• Residents have asked me to comment not because of intrusion by windows, loss of view, or loss of privacy. Their concern is that the mass being increased to the south of them will cast a shadow across neighbouring gardens. They will lose sunlight and the amenity of sitting in their garden to enjoy the sunshine.
• I understand why the property owners wish to make these changes, but I equally understand why other local residents are concerned. The proposal will overshadow their properties and be overbearing.

The Head of Planning clarified that the SPD does set out a number of approaches, including actions for reducing carbon emissions and introduction of renewable energy. However, it encourages those measures but does not demand them. It has the full weight of a supplementary planning document, but it does not set out any categoric fixed policies that must be complied with. It is a guidance document that encourages developers to follow this approach. As a planning authority we are not in a position to insist that certain measures are put in place.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• There was no parish council objection.
• The roof of the property to the south  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Planning Application Documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• Unable to confirm whether the hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) will include palm oil. The application does state that the oil will be sustainably sourced.
• The less than substantial harm identified in the report is the harm on the settings of the listed building, and harm to the conservation area. Whilst this harm is minor it does still need to be justified and outweighed by the public benefits.
• Not aware of any issues being caused by soil compaction needing to be assessed by the case offer. A condition for the application is that land needs to be returned to its former condition post deconstruction, included ground and flower beds.
• The ice rink uses real ice.

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

• The economic benefit the ice rink brings to the town is impressive and is one of the town’s best features in the winter.
• Pleased that they are still looking at the climate implications of the power supply. Currently not sustainable. Interested to see how investigations into surplus supply are harnessed.
• Disappointed that the mains supply recommendation has not been completed as it has been discussed for many years.
• Concern was raised that as winters continue to become milder it will use more energy to freeze the ice and increase emissions. An alternative roller rink would use less energy.
• The re-turfing of Imperial Gardens has shown deterioration over the years. Soil compaction is a concern, especially as the winter is when local gardens would normally regenerate. One Member was minded to refuse on ecological grounds. They noted that council officers do a fantastic job in ensuring the surface is repaired to their satisfaction, but another 3 years of this structure will worsen issues that are emerging. Concerns were raised that the council may need to completely re-do the garden after this period.
• Another Member felt that the heritage and amenity for the community meant that the economic benefits outweighed the inadequacies.

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

For: 8

Against: 1

Abstentions: 1

Voted to permit.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.