Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, and reminded Members of the long back story set out in the officer report, relating to the Property arm of the Council swapping land with Chapel Spa in order to facilitate the Portland Street development.  At that point, it was felt that the harm to the listed building as a result of allowing parking in front of it was outweighed by the advantage of using Warwick Place as a bus node.In view of the strong objection from the Heritage and Conservation team regarding harm to the listed building, a temporary consent is now proposed, with the hope of finding a better resolution in due course.  This seems a reasonable way forward.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mena Louka, applicant, in support

The proposed parking is to the side of Chapel Spa, not in front of it, and will not impact on its setting.  Photos provided show a car parked on the left of Chapel Spa between 2003 and 2005, when it was owned by Centre Parks; a Chapel Spa parking area in 2009, fenced off by the council since July 2014;  and the applicant’s own private car parking before it was fenced off in 2014.  Chapel Spa staff cannot afford to pay £10 a day for parking.  The business attracted 7610 visitors, 20% from Cheltenham, 19% from London, and the rest from elsewhere in the UK.  It employs 20 staff, and in the first year after purchasing Chapel Spa in May 2014, the number of working hours has increased by 16,000 – so increased visitor numbers, increased employment, and improvement to the listed building.  Did not originally want a dropped kerb, as owned private parking spaces in the street beside Chapel Spa until the council fenced it off.  Was then persuaded to swap his land for the two parking spaces to the side of Chapel Spa, which the council owned.  Feels he has been treated very badly by the council, denying him and his staff access to his private parking spaces.  Does not understand why this is happening, and wonders if it is because he is not British.

Member debate:

SW:  considers the speaker’s last comment insulting both to officers and the council.  It should be withdrawn.

KS:  doesn’t blame the applicant for feeling aggrieved, and has no problem at all with this application.  Cars have parked here for many years; it isn’t a problem, and the fact that the council was prepared to do a land swap suggests that the listed building isn’t all that important.  We have to be fair; the land has been fenced off and the applicant can’t park his car on his own land.  This application should be permitted, without any time limit.

AM:  agrees with KS, but considers a two-year time limit sensible.  Has sympathy with the applicant; the land swap with CBC was undertaken on an understanding that was not honoured.  The proposal should be approved.

BF:  on Planning View, asked why the barrier hadn’t been removed.  Subsequently asked David Roberts who explained that the Council acquired the land and stopped it up in 2014 - it was originally going to be used a a bus node for Portland Street and was retained as such.  Plans for Portland Street have now changed, but the land is still providing a barrier between Portland Street and listed building – why has it remained stopped up?  It isn’t all CBC’s fault that things have happened as they have, buthopes it will be resolved within two years. The application should be approved as it stands.

LS:  the officer recommendation for temporary approval is correct.  Would just repeat SW’s comments that the notion that officers determine an application on the nationality of the applicant as absurd as it is insulting – this should be made clear.

HM:  is in agreement with all that has been said.  There is risk that in two years’ time we will be no further forward; the applicant should be allowed to ask for an extension at that time at no extra cost. 

MJC, in response:

-       technically this can’t be done as the fee is part of a valid planning application, and it’s not up to Planning Committee to waive the cost.  Officers could discuss the matter with the Property team, and maybe CBC could pay the fee.

PT:  on Planning View, it was mentioned that the amount of parking belonging to Chapel Spa was just the pavement; in fact it’s two times the width of the pavement.  The red line doesn’t include the pavement, let along two times the pavement.  Can officers clarify where the red line should be?

MJC, in response:

-       the blue hatched area is the area owned by the applicant.

AL:  the officer and applicant have talked about entering into a land swap – why is access not allowed to this strip of land if nothing is achieved?

MJC, in response:

-       does not know the answer – was not party to discussions with Property officers.  Can follow up with Property team.

-        

PT:  the applicant shouldn’t have to pay for a planning application to access his own land.

MJC, in response:

-       this is essentially a land dispute.  CBC is one half of the dispute.  Members can discuss the issue with Property officers if they want to know more. 

AC:  how did the applicant access the land previously?

MJC, in response:

-       essentially by bumping up and down the pavement.  The drop kerb will make it easier

Vote on officer recommendation to grant temporary permission

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT