Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above.  The plans have been revised during the course of the application to secure a reduction in the number of units from five to four – it is now for two sets of semi-detached houses with car parking.  Officers consider it to be an effective and efficient use of the space, making a contribution to the housing stock in the borough.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Babbage, due to the level of local concern.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Represents the immediate neighbours, none of whom dispute brownfield development in principle, or argue that the application site is a beauty spot.  However, five of the eight houses that border the site have expressed strong and consistent objections about impact on their properties and about highway safety.  Neighbours are glad Councillor Babbage referred the matter to Planning Committee as their concern from the start is that although it is only a small application, it is too easy for paperwork to be put in front of busy officials who don’t actually know the neighbourhood.  Any decision will be taken as precedent for those determined to develop King Alfred Way, and this proposal would form the only residential use within that street and change its character.  The details of neighbours objections have been circulated; they centre on privacy, highways safety, trees and access.  None of these concerns have really been improved by the modified March plans, and in some cases the revisions have made them materially worse. 

Privacy has been raised as an issue by homes which aren’t currently overlooked; windows were introduced to the second revisions which didn’t exist at all in the first set so presumably aren’t needed.  Regarding highway safety and traffic, these are serious issues in a crowded area.  The council recommendation echoes the applicant’s statement that there are no recorded incidents in the area, but what exactly is the rea and over what timescale?  Several neighbours have assisted with collisions and injuries, and there are regular near misses.  What data is being used about what local people know to be busy roads?  Properties 1 and 2 will create a blind exit where no-one an see anything, while the current lock-ups are set safely metres back from the road.  The proposal removes safe off-road parking and sets an unrealistic parking ratio which forces more cars onto the streets.

Regarding trees, it is proposed to give one affected tree a management plan although the tree expert’s report still identifies some species wrongly. 

Regarding access, the proposed site layout plan states that existing access rights to the rear of 35 Hales Road will be maintained, but these do not attach to No. 35 but to No. 33.  The council recommendation repeats this inaccuracy despite having been provided with accurate information in November.

In conclusion, neighbours are grateful that the Council is prepared to consider this matter, and simply ask that the way forward for this tiny strip of land be fair, reasonable, and based on accurate information.

Representative of Coombes Everitt, architects, in support

Throughout the development of the scheme, Coombes Everitt has engaged with the local authority and their consultants, including highways and trees officers, to develop and refine the scheme to the current point where they have no objections and the case officer has recommended the scheme for approval.  Much of the development and consultation is set out in the officer report, but the key change, since the initial application, is the reduction from five to four dwellings.  This has enabled the density of the scheme to be relaxed, and provided more open space on the site.  Parking for vehicles and cycles on site meets local authority guidance, and County Highways have not raised any objection to the scheme. 

A number of local residents have objected to the impact of the scheme on access to the rear of their properties.  The scheme has been designed to respect all legal rights of access that are afforded to properties fronting Hales Road, although these are a legal rather than a planning matter. 

The proposed units are a contemporary, flat-roofed design, predominantly in brick, considered appropriate to the location by the local authority.  The Architects’ Panel supports the scheme, calling it a well-considered and sensitive design, making good use of redundant and unattractive lock-up units; it considers the form, scale and style of the development to be entirely appropriate for this location, and a good overall design.

The properties have been designed to ensure minimum impact on surrounding dwellings, with separation distances exceeding local guidance, and the only windows facing the properties on Hales Road being two small obscured bathroom windows.  The flat roof design helps minimise the height of the proposed dwellings, reducing the visual impact on the site and the surrounding dwellings.

The redevelopment of this brownfield site represents an opportunity to provide additional housing in a sustainable location.  Some local residents are considered about potential contamination on site and potential dust during demolition, but as part of the implementation of the scheme, any site contamination will be addressed, in accordance with appropriate method statements, and there are a number of suggested conditions to ensure that this is the case.

Councillor Thornton arrived at the meeting at this point.

Member debate:

HM:  is pleased to support this proposal, which makes good use of a difficult site, providing the sort of houses that are needed in Cheltenham – ideal for a young couple, or small family, in a sustainable location close to London Road and bus routes, and close enough to walk into town.  Is happy to support the application.

PB:  can the officer comment on the apparent discrepancies as pointed out by the neighbour in her eloquent presentation? These are disappointing, although the scheme itself is really – will support it.  The garages need to be replaced with something – land is finite – and whatever goes these will generate some level of traffic.  This proposal provides much-needed houses, is well thought out, doesn’t cause any issues with trees, and is within guidelines to avoid any over-looking.  Is happy to support it.

CH:  is reminded of the many garage sites which have been developed by CBH – these were derelict pieces of land, underused, subject the anti-social behaviour – the redevelopment of these sites has improved the area.  We know now what happens when developments like this take place; they usually settle down well.  There are only four houses, so are unlikely to cause any disruption.  Cannot see any problem with it.  The Architects Panel is quite right.

CM:  would also like to hear the officer’s comments on the discrepancies described by the speaker.  Visited the site; is not a tree expert, and would like reassurance that the trees in question do not have TPOs.  The architect who spoke mentioned that obscured glass would be fitted; can officers confirm that this actually means glass that cannot be seen through, not windows at funny angles?

PT:  would like to look at the design of the houses.

[Note:  PT not eligible to vote, having arrived at the meeting after the debate had started.]

MP, in response

-       Regarding the neighbour’s comments on access rights, these were based on the plans submitted.  Apologises for the error, but access rights are outside the remit of the planning application, and therefore not material to the recommendation;

-       Regarding trees, the trees officer visited the site and required further information.  There were some errors and revisions were required, but the trees officer is content that the proposal will not cause any harm to any trees;

-       To CM, regarding obscure glass – this is set out in a condition, and also the requirement that the window be fitted with a limited opening mechanism to ensure no overlooking or lack of privacy for the neighbours.

MC:  is minded to support the application.  Likes the design, and the fact that it makes use of a brownfield site – it’s the responsibility of the borough to use these unused garage sites.  The errors were unfortunate, but have been revised out.  Is a lover of trees, and glad that those issues have also been sorted out.  Cannot see any issues with the scheme now.  This isn’t currently a particularly attractive site in King Alfred Way, and the proposal won’t add to traffic.  It is secluded, and access rights have been addressed.  Has noted objections from neighbours, but would like them to understand that the Council can only deal with applications and make their decisions on planning matters.  Licensing and access issues are not part of the planning process. 

CH:  has one issue to raise, in relation to comments in representations:  this application won’t set a precedent for building on industrial land, as the garage site is not part of the industrial site.  If it was, would be strongly against it, but this site is definitely not in that category.

MP, in response:

-       That is correct; the site is outside the adjacent industrial estate, in separate ownership and separated by palisade fencing.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT