Agenda item

 

Application Number:			17/01220/FUL
Location:	Cotswold View, The Reddings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3no. dwellings
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Defer
Letters of Rep:		48	Update Report:		None

 

EP introduced the application as above.  Officers consider the scheme to be well-designed, and that it will fit well in the street scene with regard to size, mass, lay-out and design.  Highways officers are comfortable with the proposal, and it will not have an unacceptable impact in neighbouring amenity.  Various issues are dealt with by condition.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter, and the recommendation is to permit. 

 

A condition regarding obscure glazing, as mentioned at paragraph 5.2 of the report, has been omitted.  This will be added if the application is permitted.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Paul Thomas, on behalf of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

Three weeks ago, a van, allegedly speeding along The Reddings, swerved to avoid a car pulling out of the drive and crashed into a bus stop, 40metres from the development site, illustrating the safety issue in The Reddings.  It is a busy road, especially at peak times: a major route for parents taking children to school, a bus route, and an ambulance cut-through to avoid A40 congestion; it is a long straight road, resulting in many cars speeding well over 30mph. The existing building pre-dates public pavements, and this application proposes three closely-spaced drives exiting onto a fast and busy road with no pavement to act as a buffer and provide visibility.  The neighbours on either side have confirmed that they will not reduce the height of their fences as detailed in the revised plan.  Visibility splays are very poor here, less than 30 metres, in addition to which any large car or van parked in an adjacent drive will totally obscure the view, so cars will have to ‘stick out’ to see if the road is clear.  The site layout, proximity to the roundabout, and busy road make it almost certain that cars will enter the driveways forward, and have to reverse out in the face of oncoming traffic – so with no warning or visibility, cars will be pulling out in front of oncoming traffic with potentially fatal results.  The revised plan fails to address the fundamental problems;  it may comply with the rules, but the rules need to be applied in the situational context.  If only two houses were proposed, there would be space for a turning circle with appropriate positioning, addressing many safety concerns.  Local knowledge is being ignored, and we have seen recently in Kensington Borough the devastating effects that can arise where local warnings are dismissed.  One of the 48 objection letters powerfully sums up local concerns, describing the incident where the van demolished the bus stop, used to pick up and drop off school children.  The writer had previously witnessed the aftermath a child being run over in Reddings Road some years ago, and states that having worked with bereaved families, knows the devastation of a fatal car accident, particularly it the accident was preventable.  The proposed development will increase the dangers – an accident waiting to happen – and the future safety of residents shouldn’t be compromised by the short-term profit motive of the developer. 

 

Mr Mark Le Grand, agent, in support

Most points are contained in the planning officer’s report, but would just say that during the design process, consideration was given to the final scheme, to ensure it was sympathetic to local buildings and surroundings.  The applicant worked closely with the planning department, including taking pre-app advice.  They liaised with local residents and established that a traditional design of dwelling would be preferred, then went through the formal process, liaising with planning officers and making several amendments along the way.  The resulting scheme is fully compliant with all the relevant sections of the Manual for Streets.  There are no objections from the consultees – from Gloucestershire Highways, the Architects’ Panel, the trees officer - and the proposed scheme complies with the Local Plan, and SPD and the NPPF.  Feels strongly that the proposal is acceptable for the site, and hopes that Members will approve the application.

 

Councillor Britter, in objection

Local Reddings residents believe that this building makes a positive contribution to the local character and sense of place of the area, and there is extremely strong local opposition to this proposal.  Cotswold View is on of the oldest buildings in The Reddings, with no other properties of this style of character in the area.  ‘Garden grab’ developments over the last 30 years have allowed similar properties to be demolished to make way for modern housing.  As Cotswold View is one of the last surviving examples, residents regard it as a heritage asset and believe it should be protected by the local authority.  To demolish this historical cottage and squeeze in three houses is blatant over-development; it would be scandalous to allow this property to be demolished.  The current mix of houses in The Reddings gives it a village feel, unique in Cheltenham, and the houses are high quality and aesthetically pleasing.  This proposal will break up this mix and does nothing to enhance or blend in with the character of the area or make a positive contribution.  As the proposal is to build on a garden, it is a garden grab development, contrary to the NPPF, and CBC should follows its own policies and resist this inappropriate development, which impacts adversely on the overall environment.  The proposed buildings fill the plot width-ways, tightly spaced to each other and to adjacent properties, as well as extending beyond the front building line.  This makes it an overbearing development that will look out of place, and there is no indication for a pavement adjacent to the road, contrary to precedents set for other local development since the 1970s.  Is very concerned about the impact this proposal will have on road traffic and safety in the area, with the site on a main bus route,  and close to a mini-roundabout, high volume of traffic, and poor visibility splays from driveways.  The  risk of potential traffic accidents is very high.  In view of the impact on local residents and the importance of the historical building, urges Members to refuse this application.  

 

 

Member debate:

AH:  the first speaker talked about road safety, and having looked at the satellite map, agrees that measures need to be put in place to reduce the temptation to speed down this road.  However, doesn’t see how the this impacts on this planning application in particular, which will probably result in four or five extra cars.  It is a side issue that an accident has occurred near the site. 

 

PT:  has a few questions for officers.  Where is any discussion about pavements?  Is amazed these are not mentioned.  The applicant says he considered local people when developing this scheme, but surely the first thing to do would be to install a pavement across the front of the property.  Pavements are an essential part of roads, particularly in the country.  It is difficult to understand how this has not been considered.  Secondly, this is over-development.  In view of the historical context of the building, it would be better to refurbish it and maybe build one other on the site.  The site wouldn’t be so densely occupied, and a pavement could be created to make it more safe for local people to walk on. 

 

MC:  you have to live in the area to appreciate the implications of this proposal.  Cotswold View is a 200-year-old building, the old post office, and a significant building in the area – the first thing you notice when walking or driving along the road.  There is no pavement in front of it.  It would be a shame to knock this interesting building down and build three modern houses, but sad as this is, realises that we cannot stand in the way of progress.  Has to be critical, as always, of the highways report.  It is a nonsense – working from plans that don’t show a roundabout 200 yards away – that says it all.  There is a massive difference between a T-junction and a roundabout junction.  The roundabout is set back off The Reddings; because of the angle into the road, drivers cannot see into North Road West, and many drivers drive straight over the roundabout.  This is a dangerous junction; is surprised there has been no serious accident.  The speaker from the residents’ association talked about the need to improve the visibility splays, and that to do this, the fence panels in neighbouring gardens will have to be removed; as these are not in the ownership of the applicant, this won’t happen.  The roundabout is 25m to one side of the site, and dangerous; 40m to the other side is the site of a nasty accident.  A student filmed the incident; is amazed no-one was badly injured.  It was caused by a speeding van swerving to avoid a reversing car, going out of control and hitting the bus stop.  A highways officer should attend Planning Committee to explain their comments and thinking. 

 

Notes there have been 48 objections, although only 24 residents were notified.  Agrees with some of the objections from the residents’ association and, as they say, they are not NIMBYs, just people who know the area they live in.  There has been some discussion of over-development; we are not here to redesign the scheme, but three houses on this plot is clearly over-development, and at the very least, the entrance and exit should be redesigned to allow cars to exit the site forwards. 

 

Will not support this scheme – it would be a very irresponsible thing to do.

 

PM:  is so glad he went and looked at this site.  The photo is great, and Cotswold View is one of several interesting and delightful buildings in the area, together with The Cottage and Poplar Cottage – would like them in Charlton Kings.  It appears to be in good condition, and is appalled at the thought of it being knocked down and replaced with three houses.  Planning Committee should apply rules consistently; in Greenhills Road, a number of garden-grabbing developments have been permitted, but the most recent one was rejected by Highways officers due to lack of adequate visibility splays – and it is equally unacceptable here.  Noted a car parked on the pavement, two houses along from the site, with traffic whizzing past and no wing mirror.  Three exits onto this road is unacceptable.  Is not in favour of this application.

 

CN:  doesn’t know where to start – has become more agitated as he has listened to other Members.  Agrees with MC.  This is a distinctive property, 200 years old, which contributes to the sense of place in The Reddings.  PT has made good comments about the pavements, and NB is right in saying that the property is an important part of the character of the area.  PM talked about the visibility splays on Greenhills Road, but the issue there was more than that – highways officers said the proposal was OK, then saw a police speed report which showed that traffic actually travels faster than the 30mph speed limit along that road.  Mr Thomas talked about speeding on The Reddings; what is the average speed, and what is the impact of this on the visibility splays?  Agrees with MC, that someone from Gloucestershire Highways should attend Planning Committee routinely, to answer these types of question. 

 

Mr Thomas also said that if two properties were constructed rather than three, there would be scope for vehicles to turn within the site.  Reversing onto a road with high traffic levels, speeding vehicles, with poor visibility splays and a roundabout near by sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

DS:   from an aesthetic point of view, the mock-up picture of the three houses looks OK – but not in this context.  The space in the gardens at the back looks small for family homes, and the exits to the main road is dangerous.  Three houses is too many for this site; if this was reduced to two, there would be room for a turning circle, which would be a great improvement to the scheme.

 

KH:  apologies for not having arranged his thoughts in advance; will base his comments on what the speakers and other councillors have said.  Is confused about what to think about this application, as he generally tends to want to support development of new houses in the borough, and to encourage the ability and right of owners to do what they want with their land.  However, doesn’t know that he can support this application – and doesn’t usually disagree with officers.  Some good points have been made.  Respects the Reddings Residents Association – they know the Reddings and, as MC pointed out, are not NIMBYs.   They are concerned.  Should the number of houses on the site be reduced?  Two houses instead of three will mean possibly four cars instead of six, but local residents’ objections will be the same.  With respect to the Chair, has an issue with people coming to Committee bringing up the case of the Grenfell Tower tragedy – this was on such a gigantic scale, totally different to the issues being faced by Reddings residents, and it is not appropriate to use it here or any time someone wants to object to a social or moral scandal; it is not relevant in this forum.  Respects the conservation officer’s comments and professional judgement that the building isn’t sufficient to warrant any special protection, and also the highways officer’s comments, but sways towards the opinion that the application should be refused on the grounds that this is a historic building and an important part of the unique character of the area, not for traffic or over-development issues.

 

SW:  knows the area well – it is part of his county ward – and considers that doing anything to this building is a crime.  It is a beautiful building.  To be honest, cannot imagine two houses on that site, let alone three.  Without a footpath, pedestrians will be very vulnerable when stepping off the pavement, needing to look constantly over their shoulder, walk on the grass verge, negotiate parked vehicles – it is very disconcerting.  The roundabout is just a few yards away – why won’t Highways officers do anything about this unsafe situation?  It is only a mini-roundabout; a proper roundabout wouldn’t be suitable as this is a bus route and buses wouldn’t be able to get round.  Drivers leaving the site will struggle to get out as they will not be able to see properly.

 

Has been told independently by several people that they have seen cars travel up the road on the wrong side prior to the roundabout.  Has been out with the police on traffic speed-checking exercise, and found probably 50% of vehicles doing in excess of 30mph, and half of those in excess of 45mph.  Other people in the group said that not as many motorists were found to be speeding as on previous occasions.  If a number of cars are travelling at 45mph, it supports the idea that there could be an accident waiting to happen. 

 

Cannot support this application – it is over-development and dangerous – or agree to see this house go – it is a treasure.  However, if the development goes ahead, considerable effort needs to be made to allow vehicles to turn on the site; two houses should be an absolute maximum if not.

 

PT: proposes refusal, on the grounds of HS2 (density) and TP1 (lack of pavement).  Other Members who have been on  Planning Committee over the years will have heard highways officers create merry hell because a proposed development would mean that a vehicle had to reverse out onto a road.  This proposal could result in six vehicles reversing onto a busy, narrow road near a roundabout.  As other Members have said, it is a shame there is no highways officer here to answer questions – they used to attend meetings, and it was a very useful exercise, which should be resurrected.  Maybe county councillors should see if they can persuade them.

 

Wants to refuse this application, and begs the developer to consider refurbishment of the existing cottage and building one other, or finding some other way to facilitate space for turning  and allowing a little bit of space at the front for a pavement.  This would be the civic thing to do, kind and thoughtful.  A road without a pavement is extremely dangerous; experienced this in Pennsylvania, and found it terrifying. 

 

PB:  this is a really difficult application.  Has read the report carefully.  Cotswold View is a lovely building and represents a lot of history in the town, but there are no policy reasons to save it.  Neither can we argue over-development, as looking at the scale of the pictures, it’s clear that the proposed plot sizes are not much different from the houses next door.  There are issues with highways, however, and is reminded of the application at Greenhills Road, mentioned earlier – county highways officers did not object to the backland development until evidence from a local speed campaign - at residents’ expense – showed motorists regularly travelling at 45mph rather that the legal speed limit of 30mph, which meant that the visibility splays had to be different, based on the actual speed.  The average speed along The Reddings is more than 30mph; would like to defer the decision until proper speed tests have been done.

 

AH:  was going to make a similar comment on the speed.

 

CH:  there are lots of old properties all over town; the oldest building in Whaddon Road was taken down with no objection - there needs to be some consistency here.  Building three houses on this plot is not over-development in relation to other plot sizes nearby.  Regarding highways issues - motorists speeding and vehicles entering and exiting the site - the Highway Code states that motorists shouldn’t reverse out onto the highway but should reverse in; in Berkeley Street, vehicles have to reverse in, and other motorists stop to let them do so.  There is clearly an issue with speeding here which the highways officer has not taken into account.  Maybe he has taken the roundabout into account and has based his comments on the better behaviour of drivers rather than the assumed behaviour.  Time should be taken to look at what actually happens, and help Members decide whether to refuse or accept this application.  It should be deferred.

 

CN:  regarding CH’s comments, we shouldn’t ignore the likelihood of vehicles reversing out onto the highway, even if they shouldn’t strictly do so.  At Greenhills Road, speeding traffic wasn’t taken into consideration when assessing the visibility splays, but although motorists shouldn’t speed, they do. Highways officers should look at this again.  It is likely that cars will reverse out onto the road, and this should be taken into account.

 

AH:  highways officers are only looking at the application based on assumptions that people will be keeping to the law and doing things properly.  We know that motorists speed along this road, and highways officers should be thinking what to do to ensure that they stick to 30mph.  We need someone from Highways to say what they can do, and what steps can be taken to improve the speed issue generally.

 

EP, in response:

-       PT asked about the lack of pavement to the front of this site, but this is a pre-existing situation – there has been no pavement on that stretch of road for many years.  And regarding visibility requirements, the proposal will not result in worsening the situation, and cannot therefore be insisted on;

-       Regarding the average speed on the road, a speed survey can be requested when an application falls below requirements, but not when an application fulfils requirements, as this one does;

-       Highways officers calculate a visibility splay of 34m in each direction for each plot, but what is provided is over 60m.  Even if traffic is going faster than the speed limit, the visibility splay will fulfil requirements.  If Members want more information regarding highways safety, this should be requested from the county, rather than refuse the application against professional advice of officers;

-       There have been a lot of comments about highway safety and the pre-existing situation. It is not fair to lay problems of the area at the developer’s door, as the problems are not a direct consequence of this application;

-       Regarding the area as a whole, most houses have the same access arrangement – no space to turn in the plot; this is a common occurrence, and it can therefore be said that this development meets criteria;

-       Regarding the building itself, officers have explored the possibility of it being given statutory protection, but agreed that Cotswold View doesn’t reach the necessary criteria to consider it as a listed building, heritage asset or building of local interest. No planning permission is therefore needed to demolish it.  This is the conservation officer’s view and also the view of Historic England and we cannot therefore resist its loss;

-       Some Members consider the proposal to be over-development, but officers have considered the application in the light of the SPD, assessing the character, lay-out and grain of the area.  Having looked at it carefully, officers feel that the eaves, ridge height, plot spacing all are consistent with the area, and the proposal doesn’t therefore constitute an over-development;

-       As to whether it would be more suitable to have two rather than three dwellings on this site, the applicant wants three, and this is therefore what we have to consider.

 

CN:  isn’t sure if officers’ memories can provide an answer here, but at Greenhills Road, highways officers’ initial advice was that the visibility splays were acceptable, but the speed report changed that advice.  How did we end up with that situation – a private speed survey that changes highways officers’ advice?

 

SW:  EP is right that no highways speed survey has been done.  Went out with the speed aware team, and monitored the speed of traffic with a police officer.  Didn’t stop any vehicles doing less than 35mph.  40-50% of vehicles were driving in excess of 30mph, and some driving at 45mph.  The police officer did stop these motorists but didn’t prosecute, as the evidence wouldn’t hold up in law.  These surveys provide accurate information, however; did one with the police one or two years ago, from the corner by the roundabout to the end of North Road West, although noted that traffic tended to slow down when the drivers saw people in high-vis jackets on the roadside.

 

MC:  has listened to officers and Members and read the report.  Cannot accept the advice that as the situation already exists here, nothing different can be done.  We have the potential to do something here.  The speaker has said that there was recently an accident on this stretch of road, and elected Members should take responsibility – if the potential is already there for an accident, would like to reduce the potential in the future.  The advice seems to be that we can’t change things, but we can and we should do whatever is possible to reduce the risk of accidents in the future.

 

PB:  has moved to defer, and understands that that vote will be taken first.  As an additional point, would like officer to reinvestigate with the conservation officer the status of the building.  They have said that a lot of the internal features have been lost, but the front of the building doesn’t appear to have changed a lot since it was built.  Also, residents’ complaints about the speed of traffic on Greenhills Road was ultimately used as a refusal reason.

 

CH:  if we are asking the highways officers to look at the visibility splays and take into account the speed of vehicles on the road, they need to check whether the proposed splays depend on the neighbours’ fences going.  If they aren’t going to be removed, the splays won’t be the same, and the speaker has said that they are unlikely to go.  Highways officers also need to specifically take account of the recent road traffic incident – they will have details and be able to comment on the likelihood of a similar incident if additional drivers are reversing out of the development site.

 

EP, in response:

-       PB has answered CN’s question regarding the speed survey on Greenhills Road;

-       Regarding a deferral, based on concerns about highway safety – this is preferable to refusing on those grounds, as there is no evidence to the contrary, other than the general feeling that the road is unsafe.  If more evidence is needed, deferral will allow the opportunity to explore these concerns further;

-       As the application ticks all the boxes as far as officers are concerned, a refusal would be seen as unreasonable, but it would be fair to go back to the applicant for more evidence based on best practice from highways – if the average speeds are higher than 30mph, visibility splays over 54m may still be OK;

-       Is happy to get more comments on the merits of the building;

-       Regarding the need to remove the fence panels to achieve the required visibility splays, the developer would need to work this out; it is dealt with through a condition.

 

AL:  if the houses don’t have sufficient turning space, shouldn’t the visibility splays be calculated for reversing vehicles?

 

EP, in response:

-       The criteria used by highways officers is for forward-moving vehicles.

 

AL:  that will not be feasible here.

 

EP, in response:

-       Highways officers usually look at the ideal scenario, i.e. reversing into the site, but this is the sort of road where they would consider turning into the site.  They can be asked to comment further on that.

 

BF:  in the Highway Code, some things are the law and some are advisory.  PB has moved to defer, seconded by AH.

 

MC:  with regard to the fence panels, if they have to be removed to achieve the required visibility splay but aren’t in the ownership of the applicant, how would that condition be enforceable?

 

EP, in response:

-       It is up to the developer to put arrangements in place to ensure that they comply with the conditions. 

 

Vote on PB’s move to defer

14 in support

1 in objection

DEFER