Agenda item

16/00243/FUL 259 Gloucester Road

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

16/00243/FUL

Location:

259 Gloucester Road,Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of four dwellings on land adjacent 259 Gloucester Road Cheltenham

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

17

Update Report:

None

 

MJC introduced application for four dwellings in two buildings, one to the front of the site and one to the rear, advising Members that the application had been amended to include an additional parking space – there are now four. The application is before committee at the request of Councillors Coleman and Holliday due to the history of the site and the level of public interest.

 

Public speaking:

Mr Frank Cowen, agent, in support

This site has been the subject of considerable discussion since the refusal of planning permission in February 2014; a revised scheme was submitted as a pre-app, and the officer report was used as a design brief for the submission in February this year. No off-street parking was originally proposed and the pre-app report included guidance from Highways ‘that there would be no significant concerns’ in this regard. The proposal submitted in February included two parking spaces but following comments from the Architects’ Panel and Roman Road residents, the agents requested a deferral, even though the new case officer was content that it would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring houses. Taking account of the pre-app report and Architects Panel comments, the scheme has been completely redesigned and now incorporates one parking space for each of the four dwellings, a higher level of provision than currently exists in Roman Road. The applicant is mindful of the problem for residents caused by ‘rogue’ parking by people using the railway station, but this should not be a consideration here, rather a case for a resident parking scheme as in other congested parts of the town. None of the residents in the existing building have cars and the revised scheme provides four spaces; many objections relate to earlier submissions with just two parking spaces. The recommendation is to permit, and would respectfully suggest that objections on parking grounds be dismissed and the application permitted.

 

Cllr Holliday, ward councillor, in objection

Thanked members for the opportunity to speak, saying that local residents have made their concerns known through their representations. Development of the site may be a good thing but it needs careful thought in terms of parking and access arrangements. There are problems with parking in Roman Road by people using the railway station and this application will compound matters. Is staggered that there is no comment from the County Highways team given the perceived highway safety matters in relation to access and egress. The proposal would also impact unbearably on No. 2 Roman Road whose front door faces the access road. Finally, it was questioned how the delivery and service vehicles would access the site?

 

Member debate:

CH: asked for legal advice, having entered the chamber slightly late.

NJ, in response:

-          the decision lies with him, and whether he feels that his decision making has been compromised?

 

CH: will opt out of the debate.

DS: is the road adopted or private? If adopted, could there be double yellow lines? Roman Road would be easier to park in if parking permits are introduced.

BF: is concerned about where construction vehicles and contractors will park, and whether they will they take residents’ parking spaces?. There should be a condition not to use Roman Road.

KH: is happy to support the proposal at the moment, knowing the road well and understanding the issues, but suggests that developer should consider the introduction of two more spaces.

KS: has a couple concerns. Firstly relating to the design which is uninspiring and too domestic in scale; and secondly, that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site -  if there were less units there would be more parking space. Also has concerns in relation to the proposed access.

JP: has no great concerns with the development to the front of the site which is fit for purpose and makes good use of space. The design could be better but it is an honest building. Is more concerned with the two flats to the rear, which are small with small windows and will provide poor living conditions. Is also concerned about parking congestion; what conditions can be imposed to stop overspill to Roman Road?

PT: is concerned about this application; lives nearby and knows the site well. On Planning View, there were cars parked on the site; where will those displaced cars go? Currently the site provides access to the shops which front onto Gloucester Road; where will owners of these park now? Construction access will be poor and hazardous to residents. Has any application been made to access the site by turning left in to Roman Road from Gloucester Road? Could access to the site be gained from Gloucester Road by taking down the railings? The proposal is not a viable proposition in its current form.

SW: agrees with others in relation to highway considerations. Is access from Gloucester Road a possibility? How will commercial vehicles get to the site? Has no real concerns with development, just with the practicalities of the build.

MC: isalso concerned with the design; there are a lot of blank walls and it is unattractive. Four parking spaces may be compliant with policy but it is not enough. The access is difficult and the road appears wider on the plan than it is in reality. Is concerned that car parking will restrict Ubico lorries from entering the site without causing damage to cars and kerbstones.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the road will not be adopted;

-          the key concerns seems to be the construction period and parking implications. In relation to construction, this site brings with it the usual challenges and Condition 7, relating to a construction method statement, is detailed for an application of this nature. The site is large and construction could be phased in a manner that won’t necessarily impact on Roman Road. Advises caution over refusing the application on these grounds,  as this is not a sound planning reason. Existing cars will be displaced but not necessarily to Roman Road and the development meets its own needs in terms of the four spaces proposed;

-          Ubico has looked at the proposal and considers that the site can be serviced in an adequate way; it is difficult to challenge their expert advice;

-          the design may not be inspiring but the site is a challenging one and the proposal needs to straddle the gap between the neighbouring buildings. It is an on-balance recommendation.

 

PT: agrees with Condition 7 but wants to know how applicants will resolve the construction access issue before making a decision. Will Libertus Court fencing remain or could construction traffic use this access?

SW: could a condition be put on to stop all construction vehicles from parking on Roman Road?

BF: Condition 7 would apply to the main contractor; could it be ignored by sub-contractors? It should be enforced that all contractors remain within the site because otherwise residents lose their parking spaces.

PT:   is still waiting for an answer on whether traffic can come from top of road?

 

MJC, in response:

-          there has been no request to access Gloucester Road from Roman Road but this would be a county matter;

-          in relation to Condition 7, it would be unreasonable to state that construction traffic could not park on public highway.  The committee could strengthen the condition to provide some context and add an informative but can’t do more;

-          the condition would apply to sub-contractors as well as the main developer.

 

 

NJ, in response:

-          advised caution on refusal on highways grounds as GCC has not objected;

-          construction work is also not a planning consideration.

 

PB: the applicant has worked hard and access will always challenge. Has no concerns in relation to car parking but officers have expressed concerns in report about the poor design  -  we should demand better.

HM: is pleased that Condition 7 can be strengthened. This is a prominent site but is currently an eyesore; considers the design to be clever, sitting well between adjacent buildings.

KS: is concerned about Condition 8 and the provision of parking and turning facilities – who enforces this? Reduced density would overcome a number of the concerns; it would enable a better design, more amenity space more parking and would make construction easier. Won’t be supporting this application despite the efforts to overcome the concerns; it is a better scheme than before but not there yet.

PT: will move to refuse on polices CP7 and CP1 due to the site not providing safe and sustainable living environment, particularly in relation to the small windows. The Architects Panel and Civic Society do not support it and consider a landmark building would be more appropriate.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the small windows are bathroom ones;

-          is not convinced about a landmark building although agrees that the design could be improved.  That said, it straddles the gap between the two buildings well;

-          Condition 8 is standard and guarantees the provision of four parking spaces. Refusal on CP7 may be justifiable and officers have a reasonable understanding of the concerns expressed by members.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit:

7 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT with Chairman’s casting vote

 

 

Supporting documents: