Agenda item

 

 

 

 

 

Application Number:			15/02269/FUL
Location:	83 Hewlett Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Alterations and extensions to the building and conversion to provide 9 additional flats.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		74	Update Report:		Additional representation

 

Public Speaking:

 

Mr Simon Firkins, agent, in support

The proposal is for the conversion and extension of this vacant and underused building to provide nine additional flats, and has been subject to positive discussions with officers throughout.  The principle of converting to residential use is acceptable in this very sustainable location, and the flats will contribute to the borough’s housing supply without taking up green belt.  The building has been vacant for over a year, and various attempts to rebrand the venue have been unsuccessful and unviable.  It has not been let on a proper lease for over four years, despite extension marking, including a site board for two years.  It is starting to deteriorate, and this proposal will safeguard the long-term viable future of the property.  Times change and people don’t use pubs as they used to.  The report confirms, as tested at appeal, that there is no local plan policy for the retention of this use, and in any case there are 30 or so licensed premises within 1km walking distance.  The conservation officer has also noted that the original use of the building was residential.

 

In Fairview, The Feathered Fish, the Beaufort Arms and the cricket club all offer similar facilities including function rooms, and the Fairview Community Association advertises its meetings at the cricket club.  There are six churches and schools offering space to hire. 

 

Regarding parking, county highways officers have raised no objection, drawing attention to other acceptable uses and the traffic these would generate.  The parking survey shows there is more than enough space locally for future occupiers of the flats, including during times of greatest demand.  In an area where 70% or so of homes have no car or just one car, car ownership of these small units is likely to be very low.  Lack of parking on site will therefore not cause any dangers and is not a reason to refuse the scheme.   

 

Amendments have been made to remove part of the roof extension, with extra detailing added to the elevations.  There is no impact on neighbours’ amenity.  The applicant has a record of careful renovation of historic buildings for on-going commercial use, such as the former Court House for Jamie’s Italian.  Residential conversion is the logical alternative to commercial use to safeguard the property. 

 

The report provides detailed and robust justification for the proposal, with no objection from the Conservation Officer, Architects’ Panel or County Highways.  The scheme complies with all planning policy and the case to support it is compelling.

 

Mr Gary Stacey, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Represents the Fairview Community Association, a group of local people who believe that national and local government policy gives people a say in shaping their environment.  They are asking Members to reflect and think hard about the impact on the community which this proposal would have.   FCA was conceived in a meeting room at the Fiery Angel pub, with the aim of making Fairview a better and smarter place to live.  The group organised a Royal Wedding street party, established and maintained flower beds.  A community movement made things happen, from monthly litter picks to a successful campaign to update the pedestrian crossing outside the pub.  The group has received small council grants. 

 

However, the group now has to use a variety of inadequate meeting venues – residents’ houses or the privately-owned cricket club.  Regular meetings of 30+ residents and community surveys have identified a desire for a fixed community location.  Many residents don’t have internet access and rely on face-to-face contact.  This is all been reflected within Fairview’s contribution to the Social, Sport and Open Spaces Study consultation commissioned by CBC.  The constraints of having no community place in a densely populated area of Cheltenham have been highlighted by NCG partner organisations, yet the Fairview population continues to grow since CBC requested the integration of the large community east of Hales Road into Fairview activities.  The pub provided a focus and place for social and formal community gatherings, a central meeting hub and a regular chance for locals to meet with the community police officer.  The FCA is keen to discuss alternative options for development of the building, but the developer has declined.  Five pubs and clubs within walking distance have closed since the Greyhound Pub appeal, yet viable compromises which balance economic and social considerations are  appearing across Cheltenham, such as the development of CBH St Paul’s Community Hub and the new Russell Arms planning application to create accommodation and retain the pub.

 

Asks that Members listen to the community, take notice of residents’ genuine concerns about parking and road safety, and understand the heartfelt and growing need for social and community space as Fairview builds its identity. The developer could be asked to look and think how he might incorporate community benefit in this major development to offer Fairview new places to live and a community focus as well. 

 

 

Councillor Jordan, in objection

Has two major concerns about this proposal:  what is being lost and what is being created.  It is beyond doubt that the pub is a community asset for Fairview, and it is essential that this point is aired.  This isn’t the town centre, but this building is the closest community pub to the town centre, and the community is concerned by its loss.  The Fairview Community Association was formed in the pub.  It has opened and closed several times over recent years, with the problem that the owners, Enterprise, have put in different managers.  The Pub has now been sold to Mr Haskins.  There was a bid to list the pub as a community asset – has the CBC commissioning team been consulted about this planning application? Notes the number of comments about the application, particularly those from CAMRA, and references to the skittle alley and function room making it a community facility.  The situation was not the same at The Greyhound where an application was granted on appeal.  The conservation officer considers it regrettable that the proposal is to use the building solely for residential; agrees with this.  Is speaking tonight ward councillor; Members will have read representations from many people, but is putting forward his own concerns in his own words.  The FCA has wanted to  work with the owner and got talks off to a positive start, but unfortunately communication has broken down.  Members will have noted the parking problems on Planning View – it is a big issue in this area.  The parking survey was carried out in the week before Christmas when schools were out and students gone home, so was not typical.  Noted just six spaces when visiting the area this afternoon, and two cars parked illegally. 

 

The FCA is keen to work with the council and others to build a sustainable community.  Fairview is a difficult area to pinpoint, and its work is important to help create an identity and sense of community for its residents.  Approval of this planning application would be a kick in the teeth for the aspirations of the FCA. 

 

Member debate:

MS:  has a great deal of sympathy with SJ’s comments, and it’s unfortunate that this application has come forward before investigation into other usage of the building is complete.  Feels the application for nine flats is over development of site.  The building would lend itself to some other usage, and needs something done with it, but this is too much.  Government advice has been that it is OK to convert buildings into dwellings without parking spaces but it was clear on Planning View that there are no parking spaces in the area and the streets are overcrowded.  This proposal is wrong; will not vote for it, and may move to refuse. Suggests CP4 as a possible refusal reason in view of the adverse effect on adjacent land users, and also the loss of a community asset.

 

AM:  SJ referred to the application to list building as building of community importance.  What stage is that at? If Members decide to approve the proposal tonight, it will be putting the cart before the horse.  It is hard to make a judgement.

 

MJC, in response:

-       officers don’t have much involvement in the community asset process – understands Richard Gibson was consulted six months ago about three pubs, including this one.  Doesn’t know where this is regarding its status, but it can have no impact on the determination of this planning application;

-       PD rights – something could be included in Cheltenham Plan but currently is not therefore this application must be determined on its merits in the current Cheltenham Plan;

 

PB:  is also thinking of moving to refuse.  Suggests RC1, as it seems a marginal decision by officers.  The previous appeal at the Greyhound is not relevant – things have moved a long way since then, with a number of other pubs closing.  The agent mentioned The Feathered Fish and The Beaufort Arms as alternatives, but these are not local to Fairview.  We are told that only village pubs can be defended, but Fairview is like a village community, and two passionate local people have spoken about the importance of that community.  This used to be a vibrant pub; it is all about ownership, and if a pub which isn’t working well can be converted to housing, it brings substantial revenue to its owner.  If this is the aim, an owner can make it impossible to run a pub in a vibrant, business-like way.  This pub used to be a hive of activity, and can be again.  There is nothing to compare with it in this tight-knit community, and it is hugely disappointing that developers just ignore the local community in this arrogant way, make huge changes and then just walk away, without even a conversation with local people.  It is disappointing that the community development team wasn’t consulted when considering the planning application.  This is more than just a pub; it is a skittle alley, a community asset, a meeting place.  It would be sad to lose these facilities for the area.  A lot has changed since The Greyhound appeal, and officers could make a good case to refuse on these grounds.

 

GB:  PB has mentioned policy RC1.  Would MS like to add it as a refusal reason?

 

HM:  went on Planning View and looked at the drawings, and thought that the developer had done a good job with the outside of the building – the extra storey, and stepping down of the side elevation on Duke Street.  But there are just too many flats inside the building.  However, if the application is approved, and with regard to Condition 6 and obscure glass for the three windows: can the developer be required to provide samples of the obscure glass to be used for approval?  Also, can the standard condition regarding hours of construction be included?  Parking is appalling in this neighbourhood and everything should be done to protect residents.

 

KS:  likes this building and could live with the additional storey if it prolongs the life of the building.  Is also not over-worried about the loss of the pub, but feels that there should be some commercial use of the building on the ground floor at least – maybe a café? – to help other local businesses, by keeping a nice buzz in the area.  The loss of the pub makes it harder for other businesses that are left; not so many multiple attractions.  Will support the move to refuse – there should be some commercial use of the building, some meeting space on the ground floor.  With regard the parking, this is another example of difference between the planning world and the real world.  It is very difficult to park in Duke Street.  Was councillor for this area for eight years and knows the problems well.  Parking problems cannot be ignored.  Nine apartments will bring more cars which will make it even more difficult.

 

BF:  if this application is approved, has serious concerns about bin storage.  For nine apartments, the bin storage is not adequate, and recycling takes up even more space than rubbish.  Is all for keeping pubs open.  Most large pub chains employ managers or tenants who can be dismissed after two years with no redress. 

 

CH:  KS mentioned the loss of amenity.  There is a cluster of businesses in this area, and immense damage will be done by upsetting the balance.  The nature of the area has changed over the years, but if this housing development is permitted, the result will be negative.  Regarding the closure of The Greyhound, pub companies run places down – such as The Sherborne – and deliberately put in managers without the necessary experience to make them viable and then close them down.  A pub is the hub of many communities, especially in rural areas, and everything should be done to keep them open – such as talking to landlords to se what other community facilities can be accommodated in the pub to invigorate it, such as a library, shop or Post Office.  The main thing is to keep the pub in use as a community hub. 

 

Regarding parking, people are more likely to walk to the pub than drive, so the additional cars of nine extra flats will increase the pressure on roads which are already full.  There is a residents’ parking scheme, but this doesn’t apply at night.  The loss of the pub will definitely represent a loss of amenity to the neighbourhood, and the least we can do is try to keep some kind of commercial use for the downstairs to help retain the little enclave of local businesses.

 

MS:  is happy to include RC1 as a refusal reason.

 

EP, in response:

-       concerning the loss of the pub and the inclusion of RC1 as a refusal reason, the Inspector for The Greyhound appeal made it clear that RC1 cannot be used in connection with the loss of a public house.  Officers would therefore be concerned about using this as a refusal reason;

-       officers have considered a fall-back position with regard to what the pub could be used for without planning permission.  We need to be mindful of this;

-       MS mentioned policy CP4 and loss of amenity, but this usually means residential amenity – loss of light etc – not an actual amenity for public use, such as a pub;

-       to BF regarding bin stores, this has been negotiated with the developer and designed specifically for this scheme.  The storage space has been measured up and is considered adequate and in line with UBICO requirements. Individual flats will have their own recycling boxes to store within the flat or the adjacent corridor.  There is provision for food waste in the bin store.

 

MG, in response:

-       parking is an emotive issue throughout the county – attends planning committees in all six districts. In planning terms, the existing use of the building as a pub generates traffic.  The building could be used as a restaurant, as a skittles club, but in parking terms, officers are not looking at how it is used at the moment, but how it could be used in the future;

-       The Sherborne Arms was subject of a COU planning application to convert it to residential;  Gloucestershire Highways objected to the scheme, it was refused, went to appeal and was lost, with the Inspector awarding the applicant £25,000 costs;

-       as Members know, the NPPF refers to proposals having a ‘severe impact’ on the road network and this is difficult to prove.  If the roads are already at capacity, an Inspector would ask how a few extra cars can have a severe impact.  It has to be assumed that someone with a car looking to buy a flat wouldn’t buy a flat here if they thought that parking would be a problem;

-       to summarise, in view of the appeal decision and the NPPF, officers cannot demonstrate that the proposal will have a severe impact, and there are therefore no highways grounds on which to refuse it.

 

EP, in response:

-       to HM, Condition 6 can specify the level of obscurity of the glass, and can be amended to achieve this, and a condition can be included regarding the hours of construction.

 

PB:  policy RC1 talks about community facility and use.  The question is when does a pub become a community facility?  The answer must be when it is used by the community.  How can that ground therefore not be relevant?  In the Greyhound appeal, the Inspector said there were alternative venues nearby, but here there are no like-for-like venues for some distance. Regarding NPPF paragraph 70, this is a valued facility, and this vibrant community group will find itself without anywhere to meet. 

 

CH:  the bin store is an important issue.  Is concerned if the design was done in conjunction with UBICO.  Looking at different flats across the town, flat owners do the least amount of recycling.  The reason is because it is down to flat owners to have recycling bins in their hallways.  Recyclables should be collected in big bins, not hallways.  This doesn’t tie in with CBC aspirations for recycling, and goes against what we are trying to do as a council.

 

EP, in response:

-       officers followed UBICO’s standing advice regarding the dimension of the bins, what each household requires etc.  It is considered appropriate to have communal bin storage in situations such as this.  UBICO was not consulted specifically;

-       the relevant section of the NPPF is referred to in the officer report, and pubs are mentioned.  It’s true that national advice has changed since the Greyhound appeal, but the Local Plan is still the same, and the appeal decision gives a clear steer about how this should be applied;

-       in addition, the NPPF relates more to rural community and multi-functional facilities.  It has been shown that there are other places in the area for people to meet, although these may not be on the doorstep;  NPPF Paragraph 70 is relevant only where there is nothing else within walking distance.

 

KS:  senses the mood of the room is not good but there are no good grounds to refuse.  Members want to find good sound reasons to refuse; can officers help?  The main concerns are the loss of community facility and lack of parking.

 

GB:  this is a difficult question. It is up to the Committee to put forward reasons, and to officer to instruct whether these are helpful or not.  It is not for officers to provide information against their recommendations.

 

MJC, in response:

-       KS has made a valid point.  The loss of the pub is not something which would stand up at appeal.  Gloucestershire Highways comments are relevant; permitted development changes are also relevant, and if there was a move to convert the building to retail use, it would not to come to planning committee.  But the Government is not interested in cases such as this, and there is no Local Plan policy to support Members’ views – there is no policy at all at the moment.  Members have received strong advice from the highways officer on the fall-back position, so there is not a lot of wriggle room.

 

GB:  it is for Members to decide how to vote.  Officers are being as helpful as possible.  If Members vote against the scheme, they will have to bear the risk that officers have put forward.

 

HM:  for the record, Paragaph 70 of the NPPF does refer to public houses. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

3 in support

8 in objection

2 abstentions

REFUSE

 

MS:  moves to refuse on CP4, RC1, and NPPF Paragaph 70.

 

EP, in response:

-       just to clarify, policy CP4 is concerned with unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity; policy CP7 is concerned with overdevelopment, design and lay-out, and is more appropriate here.

 

MS:  on the officer’s recommendation, will change CP4 to CP7.

 

KS:  is there any planning policy related to the vitality of the shopping area, regarding the loss of the commercial space? 

 

EP, in response:

-       there isn’t, as the application is in an area outside the designated shopping centre.

 

GB:  Members should be aware that there is a strong chance of costs at appeal if they vote against this application, but it is up to them.

 

Vote on MS’s move to refuse, on CP7, RC1 and NPPF para 70

8 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

REFUSE