Agenda item

Officer introduction:

NH introduced the application for internal changes and a small, single-storey basement-level extension.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Parsons.  Enforcement officers have looked at the site as work has taken place there without consent; a similar application in September 2018 was withdrawn.  Regarding the proposal site, officers consider it to be a good example of a basement designed to be a service area, reflecting the clear social and functional divisions within the household and building.  This is reflected in the layout and detailing of the basement, and the loss of historic fabric and layout is felt to be unjustified.  Solutions have been sought, including a door between the lounge and lobby for internal access– but advice has not been taken, leaving officers with no choice but to refuse, as they consider the harm to outweigh the public benefit of this proposal.

Public Speaking:

Agent, in support

This is a Grade II listed building, part of a terrace of four townhouses built in the early-mid 1800s.   The application is part of an ongoing programme of investment and improvement.  The majority of works are considered acceptable by officers, with a difference of opinion relating to two elements of the works to the basement, which are designed to improve circulation and outlook:  firstly the insertion of a 2.7m opening in the wall between the stair lobby and the lounge, and secondly the part removal of a wall to the basement stair and lobby and insertion of a balustrade.   There are many surviving historical features on the upper floors of the property, but few of any significance in the basement, which has been subjected to various works when the building was converted to flats in the 1970s, including the insertion of a concrete floor slab, re-plastering and sub-division of the original plan form in many of the rooms.  Parts of the existing partition between the stair lobby and rear basement room have been significantly altered, with the insertion of block work in places. There are significant material considerations and heritage benefits overlooked in the officer report.  The adjoining building  at 59 Pittville Lawn gained listed building consent for very similar works at basement level, with the officer report noting that the basement had been heavily altered, and the approved plans showing virtually identical alterations to those proposed by the application at No 61.  The two houses are part of the same listing, so the works to No.61 should be acceptable. The changes to the plan form will reinstate the original proportions of the front basement room, through removal of modern partitions, and integrate the basement level in a beneficial way with the rest of the house. The boiler room  will be located at the lower ground floor, allowing relocation of the existing boiler to improve the layout and bring the existing hallway back into residential occupation.  Finally, the basement ceiling has been  over-plastered with modern ‘artex’ plasterwork, which is proposed to be re-plastered and reinstated sympathetically.  It is notable that there are no neighbour objections from neighbours.  In conclusion, the overall programme of works provide an appropriate balance of retaining and enhancing the plan form of the property, and will bring back a number of areas of the basement into long-term beneficial use.   The proposals accord with the NPPF and Local Plan in relation to protecting heritage assets whilst maintaining the building in its optimal viable, residential use as a single family dwelling

Councillor Parsons, in support

For anyone who remembers the television programme Upstairs, Downstairs, this house dates from that period, where servants worked in the basement. The house has gone through several changes in the intervening 200 years, including some quite drastic alterations, and the addition of a number of partitions when the house was divided into flats.  This proposal takes away much of the 1970s alterations, and restores the original shape and form, as the original house was meant to be.  The changes have a mixed effect – some restore, some are more questionable, opening up the lobby and lounge.  The officer suggests that there would most likely have been a standard-width door between the lobby and the lounge, but from chipping at the plaster to see what is beneath, it hasn’t been possible to find anything indicating a door through from lounge to lobby, or whether this went all the way to the ceiling.  It is difficult to know what is original and what is new.  Each case must be judged on its own merits, but it is difficult to ignore what has gone before and ask why a planning officer in the past felt it was OK to take down the same wall at No,. 59.   If it was OK then, it is still OK today.  Is supportive of this proposal, does not feel the balance to be negative, and knows that the applicant is spending a lot of money in restoring the whole of this house to its former glory, including the  basement.

Member debate:

PB:  thanked Councillor Parsons for this eloquent explanation – it was quite difficult to understand on paper.

BF:  obviously this has to be an ‘on-balance’ decision.  The report refers to ‘what appears to be’ a historic wall – is it or isn’t it?  It is very difficult with old properties; many were knocked about in the 50s and 60s, and to find what was there originally isn’t easy.    A lath and plaster ceiling has already been lost here and cannot be restored, but can be made good with a new ceiling.  On balance, can be persuaded to vote for it.

DB:  a lot of work has already been undertaken on this property, and it seems a ridiculous situation to have to go into the back yard in order to get into the basement.  It makes it non-functional as a whole house at the moment.  By doing these alterations, the applicant is trying to get back to a whole house as it was originally.  There would have been two large rooms in the basement – this is what the applicant wants to get back to. It’s unfortunate that we can’t see how it was originally, but these alterations will go some way towards achieving this.  If it takes these changes to make it work as a full house again, that is good.

SW:  always struggles with listed building applications.  Half of him says yes, let’s do it, make a better building, but is always equally concerned that we should listen carefully to what the conservation officer is saying, to avoid listed buildings being altered beyond recognition, just because a particular proposal works well at the time.  Is pleased with a lot of the work being proposed, including the removal of the 1970s alterations, and putting the house back to how it was; and how did people get from the lounge to the lobby?  Officers have suggested that a doorway through from the lobby would be acceptable, but knocking the whole wall out would be a step too far.  We should listen to our conservation officers, and not just go along with what makes it more attractive for the applicant.  Likes the work done so far, but is listening carefully to the conservation officer.  It wouldn’t take much to go a step too far, and change what was a historic building beyond recognition.

NH, in response:

-       To BF, regarding the reference in the report to what ‘appears to be’ a historic wall – it is difficult to tell what is or isn’t historic, and various methods are used, including the width of the wall and the materials used.  Some of the plaster has been taken off to reveal 3-4 breeze blocks, but the rest appears to be historic brick;

-       Regarding the lath and plaster removed from the lobby area, this can be reinstated, using horsehair, lime and plaster, and the right tradesman.

PB:  this is a difficult application.  The conservation officer is spot on in saying that Cheltenham is proud of its historic buildings, but buildings must evolve.  Agrees with DB:  the house as it stands presently doesn’t work.  Will therefore reluctantly support the application.

RW:  agrees that this is difficult.  Has been listening to all the details discussed, and appreciates that it is an ‘on-balance’ recommendation. At paragraph  7.1 in his report, the officer states that the ‘less than substantial harm…is not outweighed by any public benefit’.  Struggles with this – if the owner can restore to a full house what was formerly flats, this must be considered a public benefit.  There has already been a great deal of development here, and added to that must be the sense of evolution – is leaning towards supporting the scheme.  It would be a shame to turn down a good scheme because of what is in the basement.  Feels there is a very strong case to support this, in view of everything that has been done before; these buildings should not be pickled in aspic.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

1 in support

10 in objection

NOT CARRIED

Vote on 18/0029292./LBC to permit

10 in support

1 in object

PERMIT

Vote on 18/2902348924/FUL to permit

10 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT

Both decisions will be delegated back to the officers to work out conditions, in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair.