Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above. Temporary consent was granted two years ago, to drop the kerb for access to Warwick Place by staff of Chapel Spa. The area is fenced off, and the land owned by Chapel Spa. This application is for permanent consent, but the recommendation is for further temporary consent to enable further discussions regarding Portland Street re-development, without re-introducing another constraint to compromise further development of the site.

Public Speaking:

Mr Louca, applicant, in support

Began by asking how a dropped kerb in front of Chapel Spa can effect Portland Street car park development? Needs the dropped kerb now, and in the future, if there is still a land swap. Was advised by planners to apply for the dropped kerb in 2015, but now, because they land swap did not go ahead, officers are recommending another temporary permission. Why was there no objection to the previous application but there is now? Nothing has changed with the Portland Street development; it has failed to secure a viable developer for the superb plan, which he would love to see developed. Neither Augur Buchler nor anyone else has objected to this proposal. The car park is leased for 35 years from March 2017, with five-yearly breaks – there are four years left before the first break, so if another two-year permission is granted, will have to apply twice more – which is unfair. This application isn’t about Portland Street or a land swap – it is simply an application for a dropped kerb in front of Chapel Spa. This is not the time or place to negotiate about what might or might not happen at Portland Street. Chapel Spa is an existing business, providing employment for 20 members of staff. Has a budget of £0.5million to carry out improvements, but will not go ahead with this in light of the present situation. Is fighting for a business that adds to the economic wealth of Cheltenham, and will not let CBC’s failure to bring forward a good development also kill his business by depriving him of the use of his land. This is not acceptable. All the information and evidence provided shows that he has been badly treated; is putting his faith in Members to end the abuse of power exercised against him and vote for a permanent dropped kerb.

Councillor Parsons, in support

Doesn’t usually have much to do with planning applications, but can think of few reports where the officer has shown less enthusiasm for what he is recommending. The bottom line is that if it wasn’t for the Portland Street development, this application would not be at Committee, and that development is not related to this application. The issue is the potential impact of this application on the Portland Street development. The small shaded square shows the entrance to the car park; the other shaded square shows the carpark. Mr Louca has no intention of selling it; it is crucial to his business – without it, the business isn’t viable, with nowhere for staff to park. The idea that this piece of land might be of relevance to future development of Portland Street car park doesn’t bear examination. A two-year extension is recommended, but there is no guarantee that we will be any the wiser regarding this development in two years’ time. The government has made a grant of £3m but will this make the Portland Street development viable? It might need £10m to do that. The suggestion that the officer recommendation will give certainty for two years doesn’t bear scrutiny. It assumes that Mr Louca will sell the land for Portland Street, but that isn’t going to happen. At Monday’s Council meeting, an action plan for Cheltenham’s Place Strategy was discussed - the vision was agreed a year ago – setting out to make it a place where everyone can share in an exciting future. Chapel Spa is a Grade II listed building, which had fallen into disrepair until Mr Louca took it on; he has worked hard on the building, to preserve its heritage. The Place Strategy talks about encouraging businesses to thrive; Chapel Spa is thriving – Mr Louca has spent £1.5m on it, increased staff numbers from six to 20, many of whom are full-time and dependent on this employment for their living. The business contributes to the Cheltenham economy, and it is laughable to suggest the council is helping him to thrive – it is acting like a big boy bully, holding this strip of land to ransom. This isn’t the vision of the Place Strategy, or the vision the council would want.

Member debate:

SW: listened to the officer comments, which seem to be saying ‘we appreciate what Chapel Spa is wanting but are concerned about Portland Street Car Park and what might happen in the future’. But this application is only for a dropped kerb, not for a new building. If it stayed for ever would there be any real harm to the town? No, most people won’t even notice. Understands officer concern, but rather than two years, why not give permission for four, five or ten years? We might need to do a land swap in two years, but what is the worst thing that can happen? If permanent permission can’t be granted, it should definitely be granted for a longer term than two years.

PB: Chapel Spa is an iconic building and and iconic business. It is a great employer, offering high-quality spa treatments in a spa town, and the building is fabulous inside. The future development issue is a red herring. Whether there is a drop kerb or not won’t stop development on Portland Street. We need to support this. It is a thriving business, part of the tourism officer. It would be folly to give two year after two year after two year permissions – nonsense. We should grant permanent permission and move on.

PT: let them have the drop kerb in perpetuity until the development happens. There will be negotiations regarding the car parking for them and others in the area, and they can take advantage of that then. There is no need to consider Portland Street at the moment.

AL: there are a lot of issues to take up, but fundamentally Members need to look at this in planning terms. Is the drop kerb acceptable in planning terms? If it is , no further conditions should be added.

PM: this is a matter of principle. Normally with a planning application, when a second or third phase are expected, we are told only to deal with that is in front of us. Agrees with other Members. Permission should be granted in perpetuity. We can worry about the future in the future.

SW: why isn’t the drop kerb where the road is? Initially, there was a drop kerb there. In so far as we don’t want cars parking next to the building, it might be considered necessary to say drop kerb stays, but no parking on little square.

PB: proposes to allow the drop kerb on a permanent basis. And what about the railings – who put them up, and can they be taken down? They are an eyesore.

MJC, in response:

- Councillor Parsons referred to a ‘less than enthusiastic’ recommendation – would prefer to call it ‘balanced’!;

- This application can be argued either way, and it is for the decision makers to weigh up the facts before them;

- The dropped kerb and associated parking won’t prevent the development but will change it in a slight way. Either argument is acceptable, and is not surprised by the conclusion Members have reached;

- If the proposal is permitted, would suggest a condition regarding the loss of the space to the front of the building – parked cars here are harmful to the setting of the listed building;

- To PB, re the railings – CBC put them there. They are the landowners. Members may want to speak to the Property team to consider changes;

- Members may want to vote with a condition that the two spaces in front of Chapel Spa are removed.

Vote on officer recommendation of temporary permission for two years

0 in support

11 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

BF: the applicant owns the two spaces in the hatched area. We can’t tell him what to do with his own land.

MJC, in response:

- Those spaces are within the grounds of the listed building, and affect the setting of the listed building, therefore class as development of some form. The original discussion with applicant was on the basis of him forfeiting the spaces to the front of the building as they harm its setting.

Vote on PB’s move to grant permanent permission with condition re two spaces

12 in support

1 abstention

MOTION CARRIED - PERMIT

The meeting ended at 7.00