Agenda item

Introduction:

MJC introduced the application for works as listed above, with the exception of the floodlighting which, as set out on the blue update, has been withdrawn from the scheme.  The proposals stem from a desire to enhance the sports offering at the school, which is not of the quality it would like.  There is extant planning permission for improved sports facilities, but this is geared towards elite tennis and has a different design parameter.  The current application seeks a multi-use sports hall.  It has been thoroughly scrutinised; since being deferred from October Planning Committee, a lot of work regarding the floodlighting aspect of the scheme has been done, but officers still feel it is not ready to be considered by Members, although they consider the rest of the scheme to be compliant with national and local policy.

Public Speaking:

Dr Sally James, local resident, in objection

This planning application has been difficult, protracted and stressful, and without the professional background of some of neighbours, local residents would have struggled or been overwhelmed by it. Is glad that officers have commissioned an independent lighting assessment, and awaits the report with interest.  Regarding the proposed sports hall, the increased roof height is not justified; the previously-agreed height was reduced, acknowledging the importance of the view, and in line with local policy.  What is the point in having an area plan if it is ignored?  Planning decisions should be consistent.  The applicant has suggested that the area could/should be re-graded as an E3 zone with regard to light pollution – which could have undesirable consequences on the neighbourhood.  Realises that it is important to support local businesses, as emphasised in the NPPF, but is concerned that this application will erode the character of the area.

Ms Eve Jardine Young, principal of Cheltenham Ladies College, applicant, in support

This scheme has been 3-4 years in the planning.  The college estate is spread over 23 acres, but its central location means it is land-locked and there are no other opportunities to develop the sports facilities in this proposal for the expansion of the current sports hall and multi-use area.  Was appointed as Principal in 2010, and understood the extant scheme to be Phase 1 of few years of further planning applications.  Decided to re-examine the whole scheme, and the application as submitted is the result of three years of careful planning, considering all the alternatives, re-arranging of spaces and changing of timings.  Pupils have had an input in the scheme as well.  Hopes that Members can support it.

Councillor Mason, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Everyone acknowledges the importance of sport in the curriculum, but this proposal will have an unacceptable negative effect on local properties and amenity.  The site is in the conservation area, and the proposal will result in the loss of a key view; Policy CP3 acknowledges the importance of views in and out of the conservation areas; these views are  important to residents of Christ Church Road and to visitors to Cheltenham.  If these unique and quirky features are to be chipped away, there will be no need at all for conservation areas.  The height of the proposed sports hall is a concern; indoor tennis was given as the reason for the proposed height of the extant scheme, yet the current proposal  aims to facilitate all sports, which should give scope to reduce the height  - though it is in fact 2.3m higher than the approved scheme.  We need to ensure the new hall doesn’t change the character of the area, and external lighting should not lead to the area being re-classed as an E3 zone. The college’s attitude to the planning process has not been ideal, with a lack of community engagement, and the floodlight part of the scheme sneaking in.  The floodlight element of the scheme has been withdrawn to ensure the application isn’t refused, so hopes that no weasly-worded condition will now be attached which will make it easier to include a floodlit pitch at a later date.  Is surprised that these steps need to be taken.  The refusal at appeal for floodlighting took on neighbours’ comments, and they were led to think that would be the case here.  Hopes that the application will be refused as it stands, and that his comments will add to the discussion.

Councillor Mason left the Chamber for the duration of this debate.

Member debate:

KS:  doesn’t understand the technicalities of the lighting or how the character of the area is considered against the possible lighting impact?  If Members approve the proposal as it stands, it may alter the character of the area and make it easier for a future floodlighting application to be approved.  Would like some clarity as to whether the decision made today is likely to determine how the future application will be considered.

PB:  why does the sports hall need to be so high, when it is no longer primarily for tennis use?  The other sports uses could be accommodated in a building of less height. 

MJC, in response:

-       won’t major on the subject of lighting as this aspect of the scheme has been withdrawn.  The sports hall will bring ancillary lighting to the area, for safety etc, but won’t cause significant light pollution;

-       there has been a lot of talk about lighting zones, following the original submission of the proposal, including the floodlights.  The applicant has adopted a cautious approach, and defined the area as a semi-rural environment, in which the night sky is considered more precious and light spill more significant – although the case could be made that the area is more suburban than rural in character.  As and when a new application for floodlighting is submitted, all information will be available;

-       today, Members are being asked to consider the sports hall, with very low key lighting, to be erected in the existing complex of buildings with its own lighting;

-       it should be remembered that there is an extant planning permission for a similar use on this site.  It has been submitted that lighting is needed to make it viable and safe.  This isn’t a material consideration to this planning application but will be fundamental as and when any future application comes in;

-       for an element of comfort, should Members wish, a condition regarding lighting could be attached – though in the professional view of officers, this is not necessary;

-       regarding the height of the proposed sports hall, this is a difficult point.  The consented scheme is 2.3m lower overall; it was designed primarily for indoor tennis, which requires maximum height at the centre, over the tennis nets.  This multi-use sports hall will be used for netball, among other things, which requires height at the edge of the courts to accommodate netball poles.   This in turn results in higher eaves and higher ridge, thus dictating the overall height of the building, which has been reduced through the application, but is still a taller building than currently permitted, driven by a very different use. 

MS:  has visited the site on two separate planning views, and in very different weather conditions.  Considers the scheme now proposed better than the extant scheme, as it links together the three different buildings, but the height remains a concern.  The extant scheme shows the outline of the hills in the background which cannot be seen with present proposal.  Is worried about the effect on Christ Church Road residents who will be deprived of the view.

PB:  was concerned about the floodlighting, but now this has been removed from the scheme, it’s difficult to find any planning grounds on which it can be refused.  The Ladies College is a superb local organisation, bringing significant income and benefit to the town.  There is an extant permission, and this is not significantly different.  Will support the current proposal and reserve judgement on the lighting for when it comes back to Committee.

BF:  with reference to MS’s comments, everyone knows officer guidance on residents’ right to a view – there is no policy to protect this.

MJC, in response:

-       Members must be quite careful in how they consider this.  The ‘right to a view’ issue comes up regularly.  Planning exists to represent the public interest, but views are often private;

-       here, however, the site is in a conservation area, and views to the Malverns, the escarpment etc contribute to the character of the area and can therefore be taken as a material consideration;

-       the amount of weight this is given depends on how significant the views are.  The NPPF states that if these are ‘less than significant’, this has to be balanced against the public benefit of the scheme;

-       the fact that the applicant is Cheltenham Ladies College is important, and there are strong reasons why the proposal should proceed.  Members are being asked to perform a balancing exercise, taking into account the wider economic impact;

-       officer view is that the balance tips in favour of the applicant, but Members need to make their own judgement.  In this case, loss of the view is a valid consideration.

SW:  on balance, is thinking along similar lines to PB.  Is glad the two aspects of the scheme have been separated, and Members aren’t being asked to deal with the lighting issue tonight.  If a villa was proposed in the gap, or a house where the playing field is, there would be no argument – it would not be acceptable.  Some of the view to the Malverns will be lost, but there will still be significant views through.  Would like to keep the site as a green field, but this isn’t possible.  The sports facilities are a necessity, and although this will cause some harm, it is not significant enough to refuse.

HM:  regarding the view, there was an application at Committee not long ago for housing in Church Street in Charlton Kings, on a site which gave significant views of the AONB escarpment.  The application was permitted and the view lost.  This site is in a conservation area; Church Street was not.  The view should therefore be more carefully considered.  The Conservation Area Appraisal states that areas need to be protected from inappropriate development – but what could be more appropriate than a sports hall in school grounds?

AL:  if the new sports hall is needed by the school, considering all the potential positions within its estate, imagines that this site will have the least impact on the town.

JF:  would Members like to add any extra conditions?

KS:  would like to move the lighting condition suggested by MJC, but is not sure how it should be worded.

MJC, in response:

-       it isn’t unusual to use conditions to understand lighting in car parks;

-       there will be bollard lighting, security lighting etc attached to the new building, but these are minutiae;

-       officer advice is that a lighting condition is not necessary, but Members may want to include one for an extra layer of comfort.

KS:  would like to move to add such a condition, and also to include hours of operation of the lighting.

Vote on KS’s move to add a condition to control lighting on the site

4 in support

6 in objection

3 abstentions  MOTION LOST

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

8 in support

2 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT