Agenda item

CH introduced this application on a piece of land adjacent to a terrace facing Gloucester Road, opposite the railway station.  The existing terrace is part of the neighbourhood shopping centre; the other boundaries adjoin properties in Libertus Court and Roman Road.  The site is currently rough ground, with no defined use.  Planning permission was granted in 2016 for four dwellings on the site – two houses, two flats – at two storeys of red brick, with pitched roofs and three off-road car-parking spaces.  This alternative scheme is for two 2-bed semi-detached houses, and six 1-bed flats, of brick construction, with a flat roof, and six off-street parking spaces.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Coleman, as the two previous schemes have also been considered at Committee.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PT:  is very disappointed by this scheme.  The previous application was acceptable and fitted in with the area much better.  This doesn’t fit.  The terrace of shops are houses which have been turned into shops.  They look residential, whereas this proposal is a horror.  The block of flats should go at the back of the site and the houses should come forward to complement the terrace of shops and the small houses on the other side. Would like to see this application refused on design grounds. 

MC:  asked officers on the bus – the applicants already have an approved scheme; this is an alternative to the existing permission; if it is refused, can they fall back to that?

CH, in response:

-       Regarding the design approach – this is always subjective, and it is a difficult site to get a perfect scenario.  Some Members wanted something more bold when the previous scheme was considered;

-       Linking the new building to the shops will always be difficult, but officers feel on balance that this is a good design for this location;

-       To MC, yes, the applicant can fall back to the previously-granted permission if this is refused.

PT:  feels that this proposal will stick out and not appear as part of the area.  New buildings are supposed to fit in and look semi-reasonable.  This is not even a statement, it is just a block.  If it has to be included, it should be at the back of the site with the houses at the front, in line with the existing terrace facing the main road to Cheltenham.  The proposed scheme will be a real blot on the landscape.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

6 in objection

NOT CARRIED

GB:  can Members suggest refusal reasons.

PT:  Design – it doesn’t fit the area. 

BF:  suggests CP7.

MC:  it isn’t in keeping with the street scene.

CN:  new buildings are supposed to complement and respect neighbouring developments – this doesn’t. 

Vote on PT’s move to refuse on CP7

6 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED – REFUSE

PB:  Both the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel have made constructive comments about the design - the applicants should be guided by this.  This is a prominent site in the town, and they could do better.