Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MP introduced the application, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman due to concerns from local residents.  The proposal is for the demolition of 12 garages, to be replaced with three mews-style dwellings.  Officers feel this is effective use of a brownfield site, which will enhance the conservation area, cause no harm to neighbouring amenity, and comply with highways requirements.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is speaking as an independent neighbour, summarising the objections and observations of other neighbours as well as himself.  Neighbours had come to terms with the previous proposal, permitted in December 2017, for two dwellings with parking on this brownfield site.  The latest application is for three houses with no gardens, and will impact neighbouring amenity and privacy, and have traffic implications.  These properties have no private amenity space, and will need to keep their wheelie bins and recycling boxes inside to preserve good external appearance, but the garages are so small, there will be no room if a car is parked inside.  The result will be either cars parked in front of the houses, or refuse left in the lane – against the development aim to improve and enhance the lane..  The garages are too small for cars and may well be converted in living rooms, increasing the possibility of cars being illegally parked on the lane.  Regarding privacy, the existing three cottages were mandated to have frosted glass in their east-facing windows to avoid overlooking the gardens in Painswick Road.  The frontal aspect of these cottages is towards Park Place, not the service lane of Ashford Road, and they have no back doors onto the lane.  The proposed houses have balconies which will look directly into the kitchen, rear bedrooms and garden of his property.  There should be a consistent approach between the existing and proposed cottages.    Regarding traffic, a third household will mean an increase in traffic and potential conflict with existing users of the garages and back garden access from the lane.  The application states that the garages are disused, but three households represents a significant change of use to the lane, with more air and light pollution from traffic and from the houses.  The occupants are likely to have two cars per household, plus deliveries and visitors.  There is no room for parking in the lane, but likely that residents and visitors will park on some part of the lane, blocking access for others with legal use of the lane.  This needs to be considered and shouldn’t be passed off as a civil issue.    Finally, Severn Trent says there are no public sewers in the area, but residents understand there is a large mains sewer pipe under the lane, which probably carries outflow from 45-63 Painswick Road.  During construction, large trucks bringing heavy materials could damage the lane and sewer, and residents would therefore urge Severn Trent to investigate and reinforce if needed. The risk of flash floods needs to be considered – Severn Trent must build in the lane rainwater soakaway drains that feed into the mains drainage outflow pipes

Agent, in support

There is already extant planning permission for redevelopment of this site with a contemporary housing scheme, the principle of which has been accepted; this application is a fresh look at the same site, with a new applicant and architect.  It is more innovative, ‘mews house’ design approach, and makes more effective use of the site.  The proposal meets all CBC’s criteria for amenity standards as set out in Policy CP4. The NPPF requires councils to take a more flexible approach when applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site. Paragraph 123 of the revised NPPF states that where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land to meet identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning decisions ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.  Regarding the size of the parking spaces, the recently-permitted scheme had two spaces approximately 2.4 x 5m.  This proposal has three garages 2.7 x 5.3m internally, larger than those previously deemed acceptable by the council.  In addition, as the report states, this is a sustainable location where no parking would be acceptable.  The application has been amended to include integral and convenient bin stores , and the dwelling will provide passive surveillance of an area that currently has little security.  To sum up, this proposal enhances the overall design of the extant permission; makes efficient use of the site, in line with planning policy; complies with regard to amenity space; will improve the locality;  and provides parking spaces, despite being in a highly sustainable location.  IT is supported by the  Architects Panel, and St Philip’s and St James’s Area Residents Association recognise its positive contribution to the urban scene.   It is a much-improved solution for the site, and  urges Members to approve in accordance with officer recommendation.

Member debate:

BF:  can officers confirm whether the road is private or a public highway?

MP, in response:

-       It is an unadopted road.

DB:  is particularly concerned about the size of the garages.  It would be possible to get a small car into them, but how long will they actually be used as garages?  The whole area has a horrendous for parking situation, and 3-6 more cars will make it a lot worse.  If the new residents choose to park in the lane as an alternative, this will cause problems for residents opposite trying to get in and out of their garages in their cars.

Also questions the situation re. parking, and how secure the windows are at the top.  Is concerned about Mercian Court, on the other side of the houses; the proposed building is very close to its windows.  Will the proposed houses fit in with the height of houses round Mercian Court?  Would welcome some clarification.

SW:  unfortunately, we no longer have the tool in the toolbox to consider the density of a proposal – if we did, would use it to object to this proposal, as he feels the dwellings are unacceptably small.  Regarding the garages, how many people actually park their cars in their garages?  These garages are sure to end up as store rooms.  The speaker said people will be parking illegally?  Can officers confirm whether parking on the road here is illegal?

VA:  feels this is a good-looking design and a vast improvement on the garages, but is concerned that the site is being maxed out here re. the number of properties.  It’s a shame that no additional parking is provided, and that there are no gardens.  The original approval for two houses seems like a better solution for such a small space.

BF:  basically supports this application.  The design is good, better than the previous scheme, and the principle of developing these garages is agreed.  There could be problems arising from the fact that this is a private road, and regarding the size of the garages – but there is no set limit for this.  It is a ridiculous piece of legislation, not having a set size – but there is room for a mower and a bike.  Will support the application as it’s better than the previous, and parking isn’t an issue for the council as it is a private road.

RW:  is disturbed by BF’s comments.  Feels that the overall design is innovative and makes good use of the land, but is concerned that not enough parking is provided.  Even if this is a private road, parking on it could cause an obstruction so it should be regarded as having no on-street parking available.  If that is the case, the issue is whether adequate parking is provided – needs reassurance of this.

DS:  took the opportunity on planning view to look into the only open garage, and was horrified by its width.  These garages are too small, and it is wrong to think people will use them for their cars.  If they have to be this small, it would be better if they were to be additional rooms instead – but realises we are not here to design on the hoof.

SC:  shares others members’ concern about parking.  The garages appear very small on the plan; people won’t use them, but will probably have one or two cars per household.  They will most likely end up parking outside, creating a potential accident or conflict.  The existing users of the garages opposite will have great difficult manoeuvring their cars in and out, and neighbourhood conflict could result.  Can officers assure Members that if cars are parked all along the road, the existing residents will be able to get in and out of their garages opposite quite comfortably?

PB:  how big are the individual houses?  Would there be grounds to refuse on CP7?

MP, in response:

-       Members’ biggest concern is with parking; the garages are 2.7m wide, and the minimum dimension in guidance is 3m internally – so these are 30cm short.  However, we cannot insist on people using their garages for parking;

-       The scheme was considered on nil parking standards – there is no minimum requirements in Gloucestershire, and this is a sustainable location, so we cannot insist of parking space being provided;

-       If cars are parked immediately in front of the houses – which is unlikely – it is ultimately a civil issue.  The applicant has control over the area within the red line, and could park there now should they wish;

-       To DB, re privacy and obscure windows, these are only proposed on the rear windows facing Mercian Court– on the front elevation, the windows are clear glazed.  This is the same as the extant position, where the windows were considered to be an acceptable distance from the neighbouring gardens;

-       Regarding the height of the rear wall in relation to Mercian Court, the section drawing shows the height, and that the upper floor of the property is set away from the boundary;

-       The scheme has been revised to introduce a purpose-built bin store, sufficient to accommodate a wheely bin.  It is considered reasonable that recycling and household food waste will be stored in the garage.

PB:  considers this proposal a great success, well-designed – as described by the Archictects’ Panel.  Land for building is finite in Cheltenham, and this is a fantastic use of a derelict garage site.  There could be issues with parking, but this is an unadopted highway. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT