Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector, and the ward member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

• Representing the concerns of residents from Randolph Close and St Judes Walk. Whilst the report suggests that revisions have been made to address issues raised by residents, these do not go far enough or address the fundamental issues.
• The proposed block is 9.2m high and 47m long, standing at 5.2m higher that the existing single storey building. This existing building is already visible above our wall and level with our bedroom windows. As the building sits on elevated ground this will raise the property to 4m above surrounding properties. Even though the 21m rule has been adhered to due to the length and size of the property this will be of little significance.
• The report suggests the build is in keeping with the character of the development, but this is misleading as on the north side near residential homes where this building is proposed all buildings are single story or at a lower level to respect the lie of the land and residents nearby.
• Serious concerns remain about light pollution which have not been resolved in the report.
• There has been no attempt to soften the build with any form of screening. In contrast, a recent build at Leckhampton High sits comfortably in its location, surrounded by trees and with a flat eco-friendly roof. This report states that the lack of green credentials is unfortunate, but this should not be acceptable in 2025.
• The school’s heritage statement fails to acknowledge that a 200+ years old wall borders our homes.
• The new building will block sunlight into our homes during the winter months.
• When the owner of Alpha Schools visited our home to view the impact of the proposal, he was open to the suggestion of lowering the build. The Planning Officer also visited our home and acknowledged that the application will have a detrimental impact.
• The school has tried to raise support through emails and coffee mornings but only one response in support was submitted.
• Students will be vulnerable in this locality from the unsafe environment on the south side of the school.
• We do not believe this application complies with policies SD14 or SL1.
• We meant for this to be our forever home, which we have worked hard for. We deserve to feel safe and relaxed in our homes, not overshadowed by a dominating structure looming above us. This building does not sit comfortably in the proposed space. We, as residents, want St. Edwards to progress, provide better working environments, and keep students safe. But we strongly believe this can and should be achieved without ruining the lives and homes of neighbouring residents.
• We ask that this application be deferred so that meaningful discussions can take place, particularly around height, massing, and proximity to our family homes.

Councillor Harvey, as Ward Member, addressed the committee and made the following points:

• This submission would have benefitted from pre-application advice from CBC, but the applicant failed to seek any.
• I would like you all to consider refusing this application for the following reasons. JCS Policy SD3– Sustainable Design and Construction, states that “Any development must demonstrate how it will contribute to the aims of sustainability and be expected to be adaptable to climate change in respect of design, layout, siting, orientation and function”. The Cheltenham Climate Change SPD was adopted in June 2022 and sets out a strategy for decarbonising buildings over the next decade. Key points say that the SPD will be “at the heart of our planning process” and furthermore states that “How successful applicants align with the SPD will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications by the local planning authority.” As a council we are serious about the climate emergency and mitigation that this authority is putting in place needs to be supported across all council areas, especially planning. The report states that “this submission has not included any details or information as to how the building would meet the aims of the Council by way of the inclusion of low carbon features and technologies. The lack of a sustainability statement is unfortunate”. I think that is being generous. This is too large a submission to not take into account this supplementary planning advice.
• JCS Policy SD14 – Health and Environmental Quality states that “Development must protect the amenity of existing and future users and residents, including in terms of light, privacy, outlook, noise and air quality”. This proposal fails to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents due to its height and size, increase in noise pollution, loss of light and outlook for neighbouring properties, and a profound negative impact on mental wellbeing. This is not a minor infringement — it’s a wholesale loss of residential amenity for the families most affected and reflects negatively in a Grade II Star setting.
• Local Plan Policy SL1 – Safe and Sustainable Living states that “Development should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining land users or the surrounding neighbourhood, including in terms of noise, privacy, daylight, outlook and the general character of the area”. This building dominates a quiet residential setting and introduces school-scale infrastructure in the tightest, most sensitive part of the site. The scale and massing are completely out of character with surrounding two-storey homes. The proximity and elevation worsen the effect on daylight and sense of enclosure, especially for garden use. The sense of visual intrusion and skyline loss are highly damaging and create a perception of being boxed in — which is a clear breach of amenity protection under SL1.?
• NPPF Section 12 – Achieving Well-Designed Places states that plans should:
  • Ensure developments are sympathetic to local character,
  • Create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, and
  • Refuse development of poor design that fails to reflect local context or causes significant harm

This proposal fails to reflect local character — its bulk, scale, and mass are alien in a domestic, residential setting. Amenity is reduced, not enhanced — particularly in terms of visual dominance, noise, and light pollution. No genuine alternative layouts or meaningful mitigation (e.g., green roof, reduced western mass) have been explored, which amounts to a failure of thoughtful, contextual design. As per Para 134, development of “poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area” should be refused.

• I urge the committee to ask yourselves whether this scheme genuinely reflects fair, balanced, and respectful planning so close to a residential community.
  
  

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• The telegraph pole reviewed at planning view is approximately half the height of the proposed building, so the building will stand 1.8m higher than the top of the pole to act as a reference point.
• A sustainability statement was not submitted with the application and the inclusion of solar panels was not discussed during negotiations.
• Details of the planned window glazing has not been provided. One of the recommended conditions covers materials so this could include a window specification as well.
• The proposal will not add any additional pupils to the school but will relocate classes from unsuitable spaces within the listed building to the new block. This will also provide more flexibility to the teaching timetable.
• There were no discussions held prior to the application being submitted. Plans were revised after the planning officer responded to the application with recommendations.
• No objection was raised by the parish council.
• It is not possible to condition measures to reduce the carbon footprint as there are no proposals to add conditions to. It’s not possible to add a condition for them to submit details of low carbon materials.
• A condition has been recommended for landscaping details, but this is unlikely to add additional screening due to the parking spaces along the boundary wall.
• It is not possible to control or enforce the internal lighting management to reduce light pollution, but the external lighting details will need to be submitted to and agreed by the council. This will consider both the location and the timing for external lighting.
• The lack of accessibility features such as lifts would be covered by Building Control rather than through a planning application. There will be accessible classrooms on the ground floor.
  
  

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

• The lack of accessibility or sustainability features, the lack of a sustainability report, loss of privacy, and failure to introduce mitigating factors to address neighbouring properties concerns were raised as potential reasons to reject the application. The benefits to the school from the change were also felt not to be significant.
• It is very disappointing that a sustainability statement has not been submitted so the Committee are not able to discuss these matters. Consideration should be given to how we have reached this point in the process without a statement. There was uncertainty whether the lack of sustainability measures would be sufficient to reject the application.
• It was felt that from the garden very little of the building would be visible, but it was acknowledged that it will be significantly visible from the bedroom windows. However, within planning law no one is entitled to a view, and the proposal was not felt that it met the requirements to be classed as overbearing. Concern was raised that a rejection on this basis would be overturned at appeal.
• Privacy would not be impacted due to the distance of the building from neighbouring properties and the upper floor windows being obscured. Loss of privacy was also not raised as a concern by residents.
• It was highlighted that the application was not ideal, and the Committee would have preferred significant differences to reduce the imposing nature of the proposal. Sustainability measures, a more beautiful design and sinking of the building were all suggested but it was recognised that the Committee’s role is not to redesign proposals but to consider the application before them. Overall, it was felt that no planning rules had been broken, and the loss of amenity was at an acceptable level.
• Rejection of the application on the grounds of SD14 was considered, based on the unacceptable harm to local amenity caused by the overriding effect of light pollution, and overbearing height of the building in comparison to the boundary wall.

The Head of Planning clarified that internal accessibility issues are matters entirely controlled by building regulations. These are not planning issues so cannot be used as reasons for approval or rejection of an application.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: 6 (with Chair’s casting vote)

Against: 5

Abstentions: 0

Voted to permit.