Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, to create a small, self-contained unit in the curtilage of the main building.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Willingham, who is concerned about the accommodation which will be provided.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Willingham, in objection

Is here to ask Members to refuse this application because he cares about the town and the ward he represents, and to demand better from planning. The town needs houses, but these should be c comfortable, well designed and good quality, not garages which were never designed to be homes. We need to demand better for our town.  Is surprised and saddened by the recommendation for approval.  This is a garage, and its loss and replacement with a dwelling will exacerbate the serious existing parking problems in the area.  It is also regrettable that the planning department has such contempt for the local streetscene that the highways officer’s requested condition to stop up the existing drop kerb has been dismissed. 

In policy terms, the proposal is deficient in many ways:  it violates Policy HS2 – the housing density is 120 dwellings per hectare where policy states  30-50 per hectare.  It is incompatible with HS3, as it will harm the area by increasing the concentration of subdivided dwellings. The site already has two dwellings and a shop - further sub-division will cause unacceptable harm and overcrowding, and not be compliant with Policy CP4 due to loss of amenity to adjoining land owners. Specifically, that policy requires a minimum of 12m separation between overlooking windows of residential development -  here it is less than 4m, giving insufficient privacy.

There are clear policy reasons to refuse, but we also need to think about living conditions for a potential resident.  It would be like Harry Potter, living in the cupboard under the stairs - cramped and dingy, with totally inadequate living space.  Paragraph 6.9 in the report states that Cheltenham has no  no standards for size of living space, but there is  DCLG guidance from 2015 which  sets the standard at 37sq metres for a single-bed, single-person dwelling.  This proposal is 20 sq metres, barely half the national guideline, and will be bad for the physical and mental wellbeing of any future occupier.  Allowing this proposal would set a dangerous precedent for the back lanes of Cheltenham, not just because of overcrowding, but because in London and other cities, these back-lane garage conversions are creating modern slums that house victims of human trafficking and modern slavery – out of sight and out of mind.  This is not what we want, and whether Members use their heart and head, this is a bad proposal.  They should demand better for Cheltenham and refuse the application.

Member debate:

JP:  agrees with Councillor Willingham, and cannot understand the recommendation to permit.  This is a squalid proposal, which fails to meet national standards.  Cheltenham has none, and should therefore look to the DCLG guidancewhich recommends 37 sq metres – this is only 20 sq metres.  It has no separate sleeping area, the bathroom appears to be accessed through the kitchen, and doesn’t have a hand-wash basin.  A bathroom should be 2 sq metres – this is nowhere near.  Planning Committee should not support this poor quality development – it is an absolute disgrace.

VA:  supports affordable housing, but allowing development such as this is going a step too far.  Also agrees with DW.  If she was living here, would find the lack of available space depressing.  The bathroom is inadequate and has no washbasin.  In addition the building is situated on a busy junction.  Will not support the proposal.

PB:  Councillor Willingham made a powerful and emotional argument to resist this proposal, echoed by JP.  On Planning View, there was no question that someone could live there, but their quality of life and the impact of this would be detrimental.  We need small-scale accommodation but should not allow this shanty-town proposal.  This is simply an opportunity for someone to make more money.  As a borough council, we should not support it.  The poor quality amenity and lack of privacy are reasons enough to refuse. 

DB: has always understood that it is against building regulations to have a toilet opening off a kitchen.

AH:  why was this proposal recommended for approval?

SW:  on Planning View, thought the site was a bit of a mess but could be redeveloped.  Lived in some grotty bedsits in the 1960s, but we are supposed to be moving forward.  Was going to support the officer recommendation, but is now ashamed for having thought it was acceptable.  There are no windows, no daylight.  It is a garage – that’s all.

EP, in response:

-       Regarding the size and quality of the accommodation, it is an issue in Cheltenham that there is no specific policy on floor space or living standards.  Officers felt, having viewed the site, that it had all that is necessary for an independent lifestyle in a self-contained unit – amenity space, kitchen, bathroom – and there is a demand for small accommodation;

-       appreciates Members’ concerns, but they will need to pin their objections to policies.  JCS Policy SD11 set out requirements for housing mix and standards, but states in the explanatory notes, that local authorities need to identify the size and type of housing that is required.Local policy provides guidance on general amenity and design issues but nothing to  require that properties should be x size etc;

-       regarding the layout and lack of wash basin, this this comes under building regulations.  Is not an expert but building regs officers have been consulted but have not commented – and the proposal would need to comply with building regulations in order to proceed;

-       would also remind Members that the layout is not fixed, so they need not over-worry about the lack of a hand-wash basin as this may be resolved later;

-       to AH, as to why officers have recommended this proposal for approval, this is because the case officer visited the site and felt that it provided all that is required, albeit small.

GB:  echoes earlier comments from SW – lived in some very tiny places in London, without any facilities, compared with which this proposal is a palace – but we have moved on from that time.

DS:  if this application is refused tonight, the development is in such a state of advancement, how can we check that the developer has not secretly continued with the scheme and let the accommodation out?  How can this be enforced?

EP, in response:

-       the building is used as a store-room at the moment – a toilet and staffroom – so there has been no breach yet.  If CBC receives any report of work happening, enforcement officers will follow up the case with their usual range of powers.

GB:  so is over-development a reason for refusal?

EP, in response:

-       it is a bit tricky on its own; needs to be supported with other concerns – such as design and amenity.

KH:  there is no way he can vote for this in good conscience – it looks awful.  As a subsidiary point, would request from the Chair and officers a discussion about minimum room sizes***?  This is regularly raised by residents in St Paul’s, and disproportionately affects student houses. 

VA:  echoes KH’s comments.  Would welcome measures in terms of minimum sizes for rooms.

PM:  agrees with both KH and VA.

GB:  suggests that if Members are minded to refuse, they delegate officers to work on the refusal reasons regarding amenity and design, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to ensure agreement about refusal reasons.

PB:  if permitted, it would result in loss of amenity for the people living in the flat next door, and also for the people working in the shop, losing their washroom etc.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support – unanimous

NOT CARRIED

Vote on  PB’s move to refuse, with refusal reasons to be agreed by officers in consultation with Chair and Vice-Chair

13 in support – unanimous

REFUSE