Agenda item

MP introduced the application  as above.  This is a prominent location in the conservation area, and a positive building as identified on the townscape map.  Officers consider the balustrade is harmful to the building, not outweighed by the public benefit. It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, on behalf of the applicant.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Oliver, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, who was unaware of the meeting taking place and is unable to attend at the last minute.  The applicant owns Andy’s Hairdresser in Bath Road; it was run by his father before him, and has been trading for 30 years, a well-known local business.  Local people take pride in this vibrant area of the town, and in 2014, planning permission was granted to create flats above 146-148 Bath Road.  As part of that development, No 146 installed a glass balustrade, which is the subject of this planning application.  Officers object to it on account of the planning history, the design, and the impact on the conservation area, believing it to be not in keeping with the street scene.  Has lived in Cheltenham all his life, shopped in Bath Road for many years, and appreciates the eclectic mix of shops and buildings there.  Can remember when 150-156 Bath Road was a garage.  Regarding this application, cannot unsee what has been seen; the balustrade is already in situ, as illustrated by the picture.  It is fairly restricted to view  - can only be seen clearly from across the road – and makes the area look good.  There are ten representations from Bath Road traders whose view it is, and they all support the application.  Considers that this proposal actually improves the area, and therefore offers it his full support.

Councillor Oliver then left the Chamber for this debate

Member debate:

SW:  when he first saw this proposal, thought it was too modern and not in keeping with the area.  Did not realise that the picture was not an artist’s impression of what the balustrade would look like if installed but an actual picture of how it looks in situ.  Has never noticed it – which suggests that the harm must therefore be minimal.  Will listen to what other Members have to say and whether they feel that this is okay or something less modern may be more appropriate, but cannot feel that the harm it does in that great.

KS:  asked for this application to go to Committee.  Goes to Bath Road a lot, and never noticed the balustrade.  Usually notices everything!  Cannot therefore think that it is particularly intrusive or damaging to the area.  It looks modern, but the shops there are a redevelopment of the former garage site.  The Indian restaurant further along Bath Road has a very colourful shop front – this is nothing in comparison – and cannot therefore see a problem with the balustrade.  Can see where officers are coming from, but disagrees. Owners of shops nearby don’t object. The applicant has worked hard and invested in the building to keep it looking good.  Thinks this proposal should be supported.

CH:  taking a new angle, the report says the parapet well should have been higher, and the block wall would make it heavier – it doesn’t sit as well as lighter glass.  It is all to do with the live-ability of the flats.  If this is to be the occupants’ outside area, and it had to be enclosed with bricks, it would have a very different feel to glass.  This makes the flats better to live in and we should take this into account.  It’s true that Bath Road is quite eclectic, higgledy-piggledy, a combination of new and old, which begs the question of what it is that conservation officers are trying to preserve?  Bath Road is vibrant and has seen many changes over the years, so this proposal could be seen as acceptable harm.  It doesn’t massively improve Bath Road, or spoil it.  On balance, the proposal makes the flat a better place to live, no-one notices or cares or opposes it, and therefore it should go ahead.

PT:  it also makes the terrace behind safer.  There is a door behind the glass, and if there was just a parapet at mid-calf height, it would be quite dangerous.  This looks fine and substantial, and is a good safety provision for the flat.

MP, in response:

-       Members should remember that planning permission for the creation of flats above the shops wasn’t carried out in accordance with the approved plans.  The terrace and balustrade was not included as part of the original permission and would not have been permitted if it had been. 

KS:  will other unauthorised works have to have planning permission?

MP, in response:

-       has spoken to enforcement officers about this.  Access to the terrace is unauthorised – a door was installed where a window should have been, according to the plans.  This area was to be used as a safe area in the event of fire.  After installing the door instead of a window, the applicant undertook to ensure that the door remained locked, to keep the terrace as a safety area, and this being the case, the enforcement officer decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action over the unauthorised door, in view of the amount of work involved.  The balustrade is therefore only needed for the external area which has essentially been created without planning permission.

KS:  if the terrace doesn’t have permission, why permit the balustrade?  It is a lot of investment for a fire escape. 

MP, in response:

-       if the balustrade is permitted, the applicant can then come forward with an application to use it as a terrace.  There is not planning permission for this at the moment.

PB:  if Members are minded to approve, the applicant should be required to put in an application to use the area as a terrace.  He has been a bit naughty.

GB:  officers have had considerable discussion with the applicant over a period of time and made their views very clear.  He is aware of the situation.

SW:  comes back to how much harm this does.  Is very cross when people do things without planning permission or not in accordance with plans.  Some of these we allow go through, told to look at what is there and make a judgement on its own merits.  If this was the other way round, officers would be saying as no-one has noticed the harm, the harm is therefore not that great.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

3 in support

6 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

Vote on move to permit

6 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT