Agenda item

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application as above, referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey.  The recommendation is to permit, for the reasons set out in the officer report. 

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

SW:  originally did not think much of this application, but on seeing the building on Planning View, and how it was to be sub-divided, felt it to be a really good use of big property, providing much better accommodation for more people.

BF:  it says in the report that parking for residents will be located on the existing hardstanding to the front of the building, but is there any additional parking?  There could be 16 cars, two per flat.  This is a large building, although not listed – when it was built, it was the largest property in Cheltenham since World War II.  A lot of work has been done at the site without planning permission, which planning enforcement officers are following up, but does not feel this proposal is the right thing to do with a house of this proportion, in the AONB.  It should be preserved as a single dwelling – this would do less harm than converting it to eight dwellings.

JS, in response:

-       Space exists for a large number of cars; the question is whether, in itself, parking in front of a property in the AONB is harmful.  Concluded that parking is not inherently harmful, and as other aspects of highway safety are acceptable, the recommendation is to permit.

-       Any unauthorised development of the site is not relevant to the determination of this planning application.

BF:  what about bin storage?  Visited the site and could not see from the outside whether this is adequately covered.

JS, in response:

-       Yes, bin storage is proposed.  It can be seen on one of the drawings.

MC:  agrees with SW – this is better use of one very big house, sub-dividing it into several dwellings.  On Planning View, noted the access was down a narrow road, and there are a couple of references to visibility splays in the report.  The Highways officer has said these will need to be maintained.  Who will be responsible for the maintenance, with eight sets of accommodation on site?

RW:  it is difficult to see any valid reason not to permit this proposal, especially as there is no change to the external building.  Notes that the plan shows 14 car parking spaces – this doesn’t sound unreasonable to him.  The proposal feels like good use in planning terms, and goes towards meeting Cheltenham’s housing needs.

PB:  agrees with SW.  This is an excellent application.  We need more units of this size, and anticipates a very long queue of people to take them up.  Regarding visibility and access from the drive, there is a huge splay.  Regarding parking, Cheltenham has no parking standards, and some schemes propose far less than what it proposed here.

JS, in response:

-       To MC, regarding visibility, it is for the applicant to adhere to Condition 4, to ensure 45m visibility to the left and right out of the junction can be maintained.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT