Agenda item

CS introduced the application as above, relating to a single storey building on a private road to the rear of Bath Road, in the central conservation area.  It is at committee at the request of Councillors Barnes and Sudbury, in view of the possible impact it may have on neighbouring amenity.  Environmental Health and highways officers have raised no objection to the proposed change of use. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Alex Isaac, neighbour, in objection

Understands the need to strike a balance between residential and commercial considerations in the town, and is speaking on behalf of himself and other residents who live directly adjacent to the development site.  They do not have any objection to the cycle workshop, but do have concerns about the café.  Both the press release and the plans indicate that the café will be the main feature of the scheme rather than an ancillary use, giving rise to three concerns for neighbours:  noise, operating hours, and access.  The noise from 28 people in a warehouse-style room will affect the seclusion and privacy of local residents, and the proposal is larger than many dedicated coffee shops.  The proposed opening are 8.30am-7.00pm during the week, 9.00am-6.00pm at weekends, which is longer than standard trading hours and than what currently occurs at this site.  In addition, if the café closes at 7.00pm, noise could continue till 7.30-8.00pm with clearing up, cleaning etc.  If the café is successful, it will significantly increase the footfall in Clare Lane; illegal parking and congestion are already a problem, and the proposal will have a further detrimental effect, with residents of Naunton Parade and Clare Street as well as commercial premises on Bath Road compromised as a result.  The area is already well served by coffee shops, and given the residential nature of the immediate vicinity of the site, and its situation in the conservation area, hopes Members will take all this into account.

Mr Nigel Clifton, applicant, in support

Is a keen cyclist himself, and his business partner runs a successful mountain bike business which organises events in the Cotswolds. Together they have identified a need in Cheltenham for a space dedicated to cyclists, particularly in view of the massive growth of cycling in Cheltenham and the UK as a whole.  At present, cyclists have nowhere to go where they can park their bikes safely. The premises behind 174 Bath Road were used by his grandfather who was a funeral director and are currently owned by his mother.  The proposal will provide space for 20 bikes, and the expectation is that people will head off after using the café, or use Bath Road shops.  By offering the opportunity to ride to Bath Road, park safely, have coffee and go shopping will alleviate traffic in Bath Road.  The intention is to have four mechanics to service and repair bikes, and occasional workshops on bike maintenance and safety, so giving something back to the community.  There will be 12 seats in the ancillary café, with no food prepared on the premises – it will be cooked elsewhere and warmed up.  Similar light industrial units have been successful in Bath and Bristol, and hopes to start the business here and see where it goes, while promoting cycling in Bath Road.

Member debate:

SW:  visited the site on Planning View and considers this proposal will do little harm.  If the proposal was to re-build the unit, it would be a different matter, but it is only for a change of use and will be a great asset.  Belonged to a cycle club 20 years ago and there was nowhere for cyclists to go together as a group.  This is brilliant; will support.

CH:  agrees this is a great idea -  it sounds exciting, and hopes it will be very successful.  But the nub of the problem is that while the idea is great, it is the wrong location.  The passageway is very quiet, and if the venture is successful, cyclists coming and going will cause congestion.  These are family premises, but can well understand the objectors’ concerns about such a change of use. Operating seven days a week, it will materially affect the area.  It may be hoped the cyclists will dismount and walk down the lane; some will and some won’t, but it won’t take many not doing so  - and walking in cycling shoes isn’t comfortable - to cause a problem.  This is a difficult application; the concept is good and the need is there, but this is the wrong place.  Cannot support the scheme, despite regretting the potential loss of such a great facility.  Hopes the applicant can find suitable premises elsewhere.

KS:  yes, a great idea, and if in a different location, or with shop frontage to Bath Road, is sure it would be very popular.  When visiting the area to explain the planning process to neighbours, took the opportunity to look at the site.  Was struck by how extremely peaceful and quiet it is – more so than her own home which backs onto a field – and hard to believe that it is so close to Bath Road.  Any noise from cyclists and the workshop would be significant in this location.  Is sad to say this as is sure the business would be popular, but councillors’ duty is to residents and the proposal won’t affect just a few properties.  For those closest to the site, it will be like having a café in their own garden. 

Is also concerned about access, despite the lack of concern from highways officers – it is a big worry for neighbours.  If approaching from Naunton Parade, cyclists will have to cross private land, along the lane where customers park to visit Newman and Bloodworth’s.  The access could be gated, but this would disadvantage the residents of Clare Garden Cottage Customers’ cars could be scraped or damaged, potentially putting people off using the shops - we have to protect the vitality of Bath Road. 

Regretfully cannot support the application in this location, but would 100% support it elsewhere.  Reduced hours of operation may address some of the residents’ concerns, but would probably not be workable. 

MS:  agrees with CH.  The scheme is brilliant and clearly what cyclists want.  Has no objection to the workshop, but as a café and meeting point for cyclists, this is in the wrong location.  Residents and their gardens need protection.  The quality of the buildings on site is not good, so it will be difficult to insulate them well, and operations there will inevitably create noise.  The cafes at Central Cross Drive and in Montpellier Park are small but still require deliveries twice a day, and there are occasions when large groups of cyclists congregate at these places.  In this location the proposal is wrong and in breach of local policy CP7.  We have to protect neighbouring properties.  Will not support the application.

GB:  speaking as ward councillor, a lot of his concerns have already been raised by other Members – this is an excellent idea but in the wrong place.  Is most concerned about the café element of the scheme.  On Planning View, visited a property in Naunton Parade which backs on to the proposed café area; the ventilation from the café is two metres from the garden’s patio area.  Although the applicant has said the café will mostly serve coffee and cake, if the scheme is successful, it will be difficult to stop the café from developing, bringing unwelcome cooking smells into the neighbours’ gardens.  Agrees with the comments made by other Members.

PT:  is really surprised by the debate.  There are ways to control noise and objectionable smells.  The Environmental Health team is part of the Council, and can sort out any problems if needed.  Cannot envisage cyclists spending hours and hours in the café; they like to be on the move – will stop for coffee and a chat and be on their way again.  Everyone seems to be imagining something much worse, but it isn’t going to be a big place or for hundreds of people.  It will be primarily for cycle repair, and the mechanics will monitor the behaviour of the cyclists. 

CS, in response:

-       it is important to set out considerations from an officer perspective, and to remember that the fall-back position for this site is for an undertaker’s and an upholsterer’s.  Their operating hours were unrestricted; the current change of use application will limit the hours of operation for the proposed business;

-       regarding the potential size of the operation, it is a small-scale building which will mean only a limited amount of activity can take place.  The business has to start somewhere, and if it outgrows this site, it will move on.  Officers consider this site to be appropriate for a start-up business;

-       to MS, did he mean CP7 or CP4 as a refusal reason?

MS:  meant CP4 – causing unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining land users and the locality.

KS:  the previous users caused no noise nuisance, did not operate such long hours, and only worked Monday to Friday.  Agrees with MS re CP4, but if the application is permitted, would like to propose an amendment to the the hours of operation to Monday to Saturday 7.30am-6.00pm, Sunday 10.00am-4.00pm, and no bank holidays.  These are accepted retail hours and will protect neighbouring amenity – which could be seriously compromised by 12 cyclists talking loudly almost in their gardens.

CS, in response:

-       regarding the suggested change of operating hours, officers and environmental health officers do not consider this necessary, particularly considering the previous unrestricted uses.  Also, to require the business to be closed on bank holidays would be unreasonable, given the nature of the use.

KS: therein lies the nub of the problem here – Sundays and bank holidays are when people want to enjoy the peace of their gardens, and that is why this is not the right location for this business.

BF:  cannot agree with the suggestion to amend operating hours.  Bath Road has many fast food joints which stay open late, and pubs which are open 365 days a year.  Evenings, weekends and bank holidays are the times when cyclists are most likely to want this facility.  Bath Road isn’t a quiet oasis at 6.00pm, with its restaurants and pubs etc.  It would not be fair to restrict the operating hours as suggested and we shouldn’t do it.

CH:  it’s true that parts of Bath Road are noisy, but would echo KS’s earlier comments that the area around the site at the back of Bath Road is so quiet, it’s hard to believe it’s close to a busy road.  There are similar locations across town which are stunningly quiet and peaceful.  Also has a dilemma regarding KS’s proposed change to operating hours, as the business model just won’t work with those restrictions.  Is minded to vote for refusal; restricted hours won’t work and we have to offer some protection to local people -  this quiet oasis will be spoiled by the noise caused by the business.

SW:  speaking as an ex-cyclist, Members should appreciate that the customers will be cyclists, not schoolkids, who are always keen to be considerate.  The café area is for most part is fully enclosed, and noise won’t be an issue; it it was sited in the middle, it could be a problem, but cannot see noise permeating from that contained area.  If Members are concerned, could it be insulated?  Considers objections to be a storm in a teacup; if the application is permitted, in two years’ time it will not be considered a problem.

PB:  Members shouldn’t be playing with conditions, but considering the application on its merits.  Wishes he had been present on planning view, but was surprised at the recommendation.  This is a great application but in the wrong place.  Will vote against it.

AL:  agrees this is a fantastic application, and the noise and smells can all be attenuated. The main issue against it is the danger of access, particularly for Coomeville, with extra traffic and cyclists up and down the lane.  Will vote against it.

KS:  withdraws her proposed amendment – agrees that the business model wouldn’t work with reduced hours.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

3 in support

9 in objection

3 abstentions

REFUSE

Vote on MS’s move to refuse on policy CP4

9 in support

3 in objection

3 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE

[Councillor Rowena Hay left the meeting at this point.]