Agenda item

CS introduced the application as above, for an extension to a modern coach house to the rear of GII* listed 8 Suffolk Square.  Permission was granted for the coach house in 2012, after lengthy discussion, and planning permission and listed building consent are now being sought for a two-storey infill, following removal of the lean-to.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, who questions officers’ conclusion that the proposal will have a harmful impact on the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.  Neither Historic England nor the conservation officer consider the scheme to be acceptable, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Public Speaking

Mr Peter Pritchard, applicant, in support

Conservation officer, planning officer and Historic England have all objected to this application on two grounds.  Firstly because of the adverse impact on the rear of No. 8 Suffolk Square, and Grade II listed building, describing it as substantial, modern, large, unwieldy, disjointed, not subservient, with an impact on the appearance of 8 Suffolk Square which would be considerable and detrimental, and transforming the size and mass of the Coach House.   In reality, the infill can hardly be seen, and entirely complements Shoreline Cottage, which itself totally blends in, architecturally and aesthetically.  Both Historic England and CBC admit that the impact will be limited, and state that the infill will not impact negatively on the amenity of the surrounding properties – not loss of light or privacy.  It therefore meets the criteria of Policy CP4.  It is a small pretty extension to Shoreline Cottage, extending the character and scale of this model, traditional mews coach house, not damaging or detracting from the appearance of the listed building.  The second objection is that the infill has a considerable detrimental effect on the conservation area.  In reality, Back Montpellier Terrace is not attractive, but  more a jumble of garage doors and fences, dominated by high brick and rendered walls.  But for its situation between Suffolk Square and Montpellier Terrace, the lane would probably not be in the conservation area at all, or deemed of any architectural or historic value. No neighbours have objected, probably for this reason.  Members have visited the site and seen for themselves.  Cannot understand why the conservation and planning officers are so opposed to it and, apart from anything else, a new two bedroomed home will be created for future families.  Shoreline Cottage and the extension meet every planning criteria of the Planning Act, and will enhance and promote the character and appearance of the conservation area, as the most attractive and historically sympathetic Coach House to be erected in the lance since the early 19^th century.

Member debate

KS:  has a couple of questions about the officer report.  Officers consider the proposal will have a limited impact and yet be harmful but they don’t say why.  Will it be out of keeping?  Is there nothing like it in the lane?  The street has similar cottages to what is proposed all along it.  Doesn’t understand the leap.  Realises this is professional officer advice, but why is this proposal so bad?

PT:  seconds that.  Doesn’t understand why officers are so against this proposal.  Is not sure, but on Planning View it seemed that the fire escape from the listed building leads to the back yard.  What will happen to that?  Is a new fire escape proposed?

JP:  has difficulty with this application because he can see nothing wrong with it.  When reading the officer report, noted the comments of the conservation officer and Historic England and carefully considered the officer recommendation to refuse.  Supports the work of the heritage and conservation officer and of Historic England – they understand what makes Cheltenham special and work to preserve it.  But in this case, the important aspect is the front of No. 8 Suffolk Square – it was built to demonstrate the wealth of its owners.  The back of this, and other Georgian houses, however, is bland, with no architectural merit; the contrast between the front and the back is a telling piece of social history.  Officers say that the size of the proposed extension is disproportionate, but does not agree.  It is well designed and recessed.  There is a distance between the cottage and the listed building; the roofline is maintained.  It is a very well-considered application.  We often see applications for extensions but don’t know what the quality will be.  Here we can be certain – Shoreline Cottage is exemplar.  Conservation officers like to read buildings and see their history;  this proposal will make no difference to the reading of this building.  It is Grade II* listed at the front, with an excellent extension to the back.  Shoreline Cottage enhances the setting, and this proposal to infill the gap will have no amenity impact.  Supports the proposal and will vote accordingly.

CM:  agrees.  Looking at the drawings, considers the extension flows and is in keeping.  On site visit, noted that the buildings down the back lane are a mish-mash, though the front of the houses are uniform.   This is a well thought out project; will support it.

SW:  looked at Shoreline Cottage and the one at No. 7 – considers them wonderful coach houses, beautifully done.  As JP has said, the backs of Regency buildings are not special and this is a classic.  Can’t say what is proposed is wonderful as it isn’t built yet, but if it is as good as Shoreline Cottage, will have no complaint.  The proposed extension will be set back, and no one will see it other than people standing at the front door.  Is struggling to agree with officers here.  Thinks a refusal would be unfair.  Will vote in support.

BF:  if a building is listed, thought that everything in the curtilage was listed too.

CS, in response:

-        officers would agree that harm to the actual listed building is minimal; it is more about harm to the setting.  The proposal will change the character of the cottage beyond that of a coach house, traditionally found at the back of Regency house;

-        officers have conversations on a daily basis  about protecting listed buildings; Members have talked about protecting the front, but of the back being less important;  this is not what listed building consent is about.  Every aspect of a listed building needs to be protected, as they all contribute to its significance and importance.  It is important to remember this statutory requirement;

-        Shoreline Cottage isn’t curtilage listed as it is a modern addition, but it is in the conservation and within the setting of a listed building, permission for listed building consent is a statutory requirement;

BF:  the cottage will be attached if permission is granted.

CS, in response:

-     Yes, but it still won’t be classed as part of the curtilage of the listed building.

UJM, in response:

-        Members have asked what harm will be caused and how is this assessed.  Officers use guidance from Historic England, whose planning practice advice notes asks all conservation officers to consider certain things – one of which is the cumulative effect of a proposal;

-        CS has mentioned that Shoreline Cottage was granted consent in 2012, when officers felt that its size, form and mass was appropriate to the setting, making it a positive addition to the conservation area and the setting of a Grade II* listed building;

-        However, with the addition of the extension, this manifestly changes and goes beyond the scope of the previous consent, taking a step down in perception of the site;

-        Both she and Historic England are concerned about this:  Shoreline Cottage was a good addition in 2012, but the extension, although not huge, will completely alter it, and this is how it should be judged.

PT:  has not had a response to her question about the fire escape - is it necessary, or will it be blocked off?

CS, in response:

-        It is safe to say that the exit will be blocked off, and this is not an issue for access to the building as the plot is divided. 

PT:  agrees with the previous speakers and cannot understand Historic England’s comments that the density will be substantially altered.  The applicant has tried to make the extension subservient; it is not vast, but described as being substantial – though it is in fact a small extension, filling in a corner.  Cannot see officers’ point.  Will support the proposal]

JP:  it isn’t a substantial additional.  The footprint of the new extension is less than one-third that of Shoreline Cottage.

UJM, in response:

-        Stands by her comments in the officer report, although these were mostly made at the pre-app stage and the extension as since been recessed;

-        As a conservation officer, it still appears to be a substantial addition to a small building, as stated by Historic England.

CS, in response:

-        Members have heard Historic England and the conservation officer’s advice, but if they are minded to permit, it will need an informative on the decision notice to indicate that the planning authority considers the infill to cause ‘less than substantial harm’.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

KS: What conditions will be added to the permission ?  Will building materials be specified?

GB:  presumably all the usual conditions will be included.

CS, in response:

-        Conditions will be the standard ones relating the drawing numbers, time periods, brick match with samples etc, and detailed design treatments.

KS:  the key for success is to match the materials very closely to Shoreline Cottage.  This is a listed building in a conservation area; it is a diverse road, but the success of this application relies on conditions.

Vote on move to permit

8 in support

3 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT