Agenda item

Planning Application Documents.

The Planning Officer presented the report relating to retrospective planning permission for the construction of a pergola. The application was at committee at the request of Cllr. Payne, due to the impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents and wider locality.

David Jones spoke in opposition to the application, summarising the key issues that objectors had put forward. Although the application was for a pergola, the intention was to provide a new outdoor dining area with room for 32 spaces. The justification given for this was based on feedback from customers at the end of the first lockdown, which would have been skewed in favour of outdoor dining due to the circumstances at the time. Allowing up to 32 more people to dine and drink outdoors in the evening would increase noise pollution. He did not object to a pergola of appropriate size and style to enhance the garden, but felt that this one did not do this. It would also compromise neighbours’ security, since the frame would provide access to their roofs. He asked that members decline the proposal until a modified scheme could be submitted with suitable limitations on trading hours, noise levels and lighting.

In response to Member questions, the Officer made the following comments:

• The issue of noise may be considered as relevant to the application, but the lighting does not require permission. Any homeowner can put up a spotlight on their property without planning permission, although Environmental Health would investigate anything in contravention of building regulations.
• The closing time for outdoor drinking and dining has been set at 9:30pm, and 9pm on Sundays. The 11pm cut-off referenced by the public speaker refers to indoor drinking and dining.
• The hotel may need to have a specific licence for outdoor dining but this is a question for Licensing.

There being no further questions, the Chair moved to debate and members made the following points:

• The majority of comments in favour of the application are from people who do not live near the hotel and would not be affected by the loss of neighbour amenity.
• The application neither conserves nor enhances a Grade 2 listed building.
• The design of the pergola is not in keeping with a Georgian garden.
• The light and noise pollution would cause significant nuisance in what is a residential square.
• The Civic Society has raised major concerns about the application.
• The front lawn of the hotel already offers allows outdoor dining, so the pergola is not offering anything new.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the substantive to permit.

FOR : 0

AGAINST : 10

ABSTAIN : 1

LOST

Members discussed the possible reasons for refusal, which included heritage grounds and the impact on neighbour amenity. The Planning Officer outlined the relevant policies, including SL1 from the Cheltenham Plan and JCS policies SD14 and SD8. One Member added that section 16 of the NPPF, regarding conserving and enhancing historic buildings, could be relevant.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on refusing the application on the following grounds:

1. By virtue of design, scale, layout and form the proposed pergola would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building by detracting from its architectural and evidential value. The harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits.

The scheme is contrary to Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and Policy SD8 (Historic Environment) of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2013 (adopted December 2017).

2. The proposed pergola by reason of its use, position and proximity to the neighbouring property would result in an unacceptable impact to the amenity of the surrounding neighbours and the wider locality.

As such, the proposal is contrary to Adopted Cheltenham Plan (2020) policy SL1, adopted JCS policy SD14 and advice contained in the NPPF.

FOR : 10

AGAINST : 0

ABSTAIN : 1

APPROVED TO REFUSE on grounds as mentioned.