Agenda item

CS described the application as above, which relates to land to the front of 28 Gwernant Road, part of the soft landscaping owned by CBC.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MC:  looked at the site on Planning View and has no issues with this sensible scheme, which obviously needs to be on the left hand side of the site.  Is a bit concerned that this part of the grass verge has been abused by home-owners or other people. If permission is given for No 28, this could set a precedent, and  notes that the area below is  planted with trees which should be protected. 

MJC in response:

-       officers wouldn’t necessarily look so keenly on other properties in the road coming forward with similar proposals, as they would need to drive their cars across a much wider verge. 

BF:  has no problem with this; it will mean fewer cars on the road which is on a bus route and should therefore be applauded.  Other people may think it’s a good idea and do the same; this is the way to go.  These houses were built when cars were much narrower; buses struggle to get through between parked cars.  A similar situation exists on Warden Hill Road.  If people want to do it, they should be encouraged.

CH:  is looking on Google Earth and can see how people have had to get across the grass verge.  Has similar issues in Priors Road in Oakley; the area was originally set out with nice green open spaces, but as parking has become more of an issue, these have been informally used for cars.  It is better to have the situation managed, and would suggest that if No. 26 wants to do the same, the access for No 28 should be doubled, with just one drop kerb.  If all the houses want it, this should be managed all together, to maintain some sort of green space.  This principle could be used elsewhere in the town, with more imaginative ways of achieving access looked at, softening the frontages with drives going across.  Anything that removes cars from the roadside is a good thing. 

PT:  as far as she knows, buses don’t use this part of Gwernant Road – the D bus goes along Caernarvon and Warden Hill Roads.  Notes that No. 26 already has tarmac put down which marries quite nicely with No. 28.  Her only concern is that residents use the wider part of the grass verge in the summer for a trampoline for the children; it is a well-used community space, and has three trees on it.  Should the trees be TPO’d to protect the space?

CS, in response:

-       officers recognise the importance of green space to housing developments in this area, but have to consider applications against planning policy, and hard standing not harmful;

-       there is a wider issue about areas of land such as this; any applicant would need permission from CBC to do work, and each would be considered on its own merits.

GB:  all applications have to be considered on their own merits.  Will consider future applications as and when they are submitted.

SW:  looking at Google, feels there is something not right on the drawings.  Nos 24 and 26 appear to have grass verges to the front, but Google shows them as already tarmac’d. 

CS, in response:

-       the area to the north of No. 26 is already hardstanding, and is immune from enforcement action due to the length of time it has been in situ;

-       officers regard the area to the south of the site as an important green space, with significant trees;

-       any further applications would be considered on their own merits.

CN:  would reinforce PT’s comments on TPOs for the three trees, in order to help preserve the recreational value of the area.  CH’s idea is an interesting one – managed control of access and car parking – and suggests that this is embraced in the next version of the Cheltenham Plan to cover the whole of the town.

CS, in response:

-       the land at the front of the houses is owned by CBC, so the trees there are in council control, making a TPO not entirely necessary. 

MJC, in response:

-       this issue will apply to the next application tonight as well – another driveway across a grass verge;

-       the matter is not entirely appropriate for the Cheltenham Plan, being slightly too low key, but it is important to maintain communication between CBH, CBC and GCC here.

CN:  car parking etc raises huge issues – it is not low key.

GB:  MJC only meant in terms of the Cheltenham Plan.  These areas are important and the responsibility of CBC;  the message will be heard and taken on board.

BF:  in certain areas, traffic and parking are major issues.  This application is doing the right thing.  Trees belong to CBC and are the responsibility of the highways department .

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT