Six dwellings at 1 Prinbox Works Saddlers Lane, Cheltenham

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the scheme acceptable in principle, design, heritage, amenity, sustainability, drainage, ecology, trees, parking and highway safety terms.

“As such, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of SAC mitigation. Removal of Permitted Development Rights / restrictive conditions 6.91 The development has been carefully considered in terms of design and its impact, as such, officers consider it necessary to remove permitted development rights to ensure the design and quality of the scheme is retained.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the applicant’s representative and the ward member addressed the committee, discussing design, conservation, amenity, parking, drainage and construction.

What members debated

Members debated whether the contemporary design fitted the area, whether parking would improve, the loss of three spaces, the tree, balconies and the proposal’s scale.

“The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made: - One of the things a Member has loved about Cheltenham is how the town has looked after its architecture. Appreciate the comments of the Cheltenham Civic Society but things have changed since Tivoli and other areas were built. Back then there were no cars, homes were heated from coals and fires and windows were kept small to prevent heat loss.”

“- The site sits within one Member’s county division. There are elements of the application that he is pleased with, particularly that the tree will be more prominent. Hope that more trees will be introduced to Tivoli. The provision of two parking spaces per unit is fairly neutral in terms of parking, which is important in this particular area.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight for, none against and none abstaining on the recommendation to permit subject to a section 106 obligation.

“The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to a S106 obligation.”

“Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the officer recommendation to permit the application subject to a S106 obligation.”

Minutes