Agenda item

CS introduced the applications as above, for work on this locally indexed building, in the conservation area.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay in view of local residents’ concerns about noise, removal of rubbish, and access for commercial vehicles.  The application has been amended and officers consider these concerns have been overcome.  The recommendation is therefore to approve, subject to conditions.  There is an update, regarding tree-related matters

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  to the Trees Officer: he was originally very complimentary about the trees to the rear of the building – the cypress, holly and pine.  Why has he subsequently changed his view on their loss?

CH:  from the residents’ point of view, the main concern is regarding the location of the rubbish bins, and in particular the recycling of glass and the inherent noise this causes.  The plans have changed, and this will not be as open as it was going to be, but residents remain concerned.  If the bins are located here, the owners will probably undertake to only empty the bins during the day, but a condition cannot be included to ensure this happens – it will be a question of goodwill.  This is a small street; refuse is collected once a week for residents, but likely to be more frequent for a commercial property. 

CC, in response:

-       Visited the site twice; on the first occasion, liked the holly, pine and cypress trees, and had reservations about their removal;

-       Visited again with the case officer, met with the owner, and looked at the back of the site.  Put the case for the trees as strongly as possible, but the applicant was determined to change them for a different species – a maple;

-       The trees are all but invisible in the landscape, and therefore concluded that if the applicant is determined to have a maple, this would be OK.

CS, in response:

-       Regarding the bins, the applicant can store them in the proposed place without planning permission, but for the appearance of the area, this is a better scenario.  Members will have noted on site that the current bin storage is not much in the way and is quite small scale.  This is all set out in the report. 

PB:  is disappointed with the Trees Officer’s response.  He acknowledges that these are good trees, and the replacement is not really appropriate, but has still acquiesced with the applicant’s wishes.  At the back of the building, the existing trees add a lot to the landscape.  Can he move for a refusal on the loss of the trees, in the hope of the applicant coming up with an alternative proposal which retains them?

GB:  the general view of officers is that yes, he can, but he will need to expand the reasons for this refusal, and the impact the loss of the trees will have on the community.

CC, in response:

-       Didn’t mean to mislead Members by saying that the maple would be inappropriate in this location.  Admits that the three trees are good trees, but does not consider them to be particularly significant in the landscape, and the tree the applicant wants to introduce will be a good tree for the future.

CH:  another point to remember here is that the cypress, holly and pine are not deciduous but the maple is.  This will have an effect in winter months, when the change of trees will be much more noticeable than it is now.  The foliage of trees also goes some way to absorbing noise etc, with evergreens in leaf all year round.  Also, regarding the gap in the hedge on the corner, if this was to be moved round, there would be less change of noise issues; the hedge is a good barrier.

PT:  also, as the maple is deciduous, it will be a lot messier than the evergreens.

CC, in response:

-       It’s true that the evergreen trees provide year-round colour and the maple will drop a lot of leaves – though the evergreens also drop needles and seeds at certain times of year.

CH:  but as CC has said, they provide year-round colour, in addition to absorbing noise.

PB:  would like to move to refuse, on loss of amenity grounds - these trees are a valuable asset. Deferral would be a better solution.  Feels that we should not give in so easily – trees make a real contribution to the town.  This may be a cul-de-sac with no through-traffic, but it is nonetheless a pleasant road, and the trees add to that.  Moves to refuse, on loss of amenity.

MJC, in response:

-       Is slightly nervous, as PB has not mentioned any policy reason for refusal.  There are policies in the Local Plan which talk about loss of trees.   Members have heard the professional advice of the Trees Officer, and as this is a conservation area, the trees have a level of protection.  Policy GE5 is concerned with the removal and replacement of trees, andthe proposal is to replace the three trees; the Trees Officer has given his judgement as to their amenity value and said that the replacement tree will be suitable for the site.  As this is a conservation area, and these trees can be seenthey may be eligible for a TPO, but is not sure – CC will advise.  However, it is important to focus on policy and set out the value of the trees and why Members are moving away from the Trees Officers’ professional advice.  Planning decisions should be brought back to policy at all times.

CC, in response:

-        A lot of the thrust of putting a preservation order on a tree is focussed on the visual amenity of the tree from a public perspective.  These trees can be seen but are not significant in the landscape.  They are in good condition, though it could be said that there are too many trees in a small space;

-       A case for TPOs could be made, especially for the pine and the holly.  The most important tree on this site – the Thuja at the front – is to be retained.  The maple will grow to suit the space; the pine only has foliage at the top and the holly has a lot of small branches at the bottom. 

GB:  does PB still want to move for refusal?

PB:  gets very annoyed when officers want specific policies.  The Local Plan is 300 pages long and Members need help; officers know it inside out.  Is saying the loss of the three trees will result in loss of amenity; these are three excellent trees, which contribute to the street scene, and cannot see why they have to be taken out.  Cheltenham is famous for many things, including its trees.  Would therefore move to refuse on the loss of amenity to the local community as a result of the loss of three good trees.

GB:  it is difficult for officers to know what individual Members may come up with as reasons for refusing an application.  MJC has said that Policy GE5 may be appropriate here as a refusal reason, and is right to put this forward.

CS, in response:

-       As CC has said, officers had a very detailed site visit with the applicant.  He was very willing when making amendments to the proposal, and would therefore suggest that deferral may be more appropriate  here than a refusal.  Hopefully, with further negotiation, a solution can be found which Members are happy with, if the loss of the trees is the only concern.

PB:  would be happy with that, and also with looking at the possibility of putting TPOs on the trees, as CC has said this could be appropriate.

CC, in response:

-       As these trees are in the conservation area, they have a level of protection already, and cannot be removed unless as part of a planning application.  A TPO won’t make too much difference if the application is back in a month’s time.

Vote on PB’s move to defer

16/02034/FUL

11 in support

2 in objection

DEFER

16/02034/ADV

13 in support - unanimous

DEFER