Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, for two pairs of semi-detached houses with parking and gardens on the 5-metre strip to the side of Rhodesia House.  The remainder of the site will be landscaped.  Officers consider it a good use of the site, and the recommendation is to permit.  It is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Homes is the applicant.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gould, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No. 5 Kingsmead Avenue, and while having no particular objection to the building of new homes or use of this land – considers it a good addition – has concerns about the boundary treatment. On the western finger of the site, there is currently an 8-foot metal fence between the site and Rhodesia House, for good reason.  The plan is to replace this with a 6-foot close board which is not like for like, and gives rise to safety concerns.  In addition to this, has had issues with the whole process – Members will have seen his letter – which has been neither transparent or well managed.

Member debate:

SW:  the blue update is slightly confusing – what does ‘NMU’ stand for, and ‘best placed on the left’ would be better described as ‘north north-east of site’.  Other than that, is quite happy with the design.  It seems a reasonable number of properties for a plot this size and in a high-density area of the town.

BF:  supports the application - this piece of land has been empty for years.  Very much likes the green wall, which gives life to the area around.  We need this sort of housing in the town.

CH:  will support the proposal but has a couple of issues.  The Civic Society has described the scheme as ‘uninspired’.  There will be more garage sites coming through in the future, and we should try to get this issue addressed – maybe suggest to CBH that it discusses its proposals with the Civic Society to come up with more important designs?  This is really important – it’s currently easy to spot council houses, and although a simple design may be cheaper and easier to maintain, a discussion would be useful and help make the town look better.  The outside appearance is particularly disappointing as these houses are first class on the inside, built for life. 

Secondly, the issue of the fencing.  This is a major concern in Oakley – it’s like pulling teeth getting CBH to take residents’ concerns on board and make any changes.  Supports CBH and all it is doing but wishes it was better at discussing issues with its neighbours and tenants.  Realises this isn’t a planning reason to object.

GB:  TC has confirmed that she will speak to CBH about this.

PB:  agrees with CH, and regrets that no-one from CBH is here to hear the comments.  The concerns raised by the neighbour must be addressed.  To make it clear, his comments related to CBH and its lack of engagement, not to planning officers.  Hopes for discussions with the neighbours, and that CBH and planners will consider their concerns.

CN:  supports CH and PB.  It is important to involve the Civic Society more rather than less, to help evolve some more inspiring designs.  It’s a shame that no-one from CBH is here to hear the comments, and also that PJ has to leave the Chamber during this debate – does not like this approach, as he would gain a great deal if he could listen to what other Members have to say.  He can and should contribute to the debate – the Localism Act encourages more involvement from Councillors, and does not like it when expert councillors feel they have to leave the Chamber.  Can the legal officer confirm that this is necessary. 

BF:  would just point out that Mrs Salter of CBH is always16/00971/FUL in the public gallery when CBH applications are being discussed, listening to the debates and taking note.  It would help ensure CBH presence if CBH applications could be considered earlier in the meetings.

NJ, in response:

-       understands CN’s concerns, but PJ took advice, having a ‘vested interest’ in the CBH applications.  Legal advice was that it would be best if he did not take part in the debate, but ultimately the decision was his. 

GB:  the Council approved the Code of Conduct  which gives guidance on these matters.  PJ has taken note and chosen not to be in the Chamber.  This could be looked at again, but is not really relevant to consideration of the applications tonight.

AL:  supports the scheme, and likes the sense of space and the fact that there is no attempt to cram in too many houses.  Agrees that a bit more imagination in the design would be nice.  Can we add a condition to make sure that the matter of the fence is dealt with?

EP, in response:

-       there is currently metal fencing between the site and the amenity space at Rhodesia House. The plan shows timber fencing in that area, with the remainder of the boundary – including the part abutting the speaker’s garden – conditioned to remain as it is;

-       regarding the height of the fence between the application site and Rhodesia House, a condition is attached to ask for more information;

-       officers will ensure that CBHwill take Members’ comments on board;

-       to SW, the NMUs referred to in Highways comments on the blue update are ‘non-motorised users’.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with additional condition

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT