Agenda item

 

 

Application Number:			18/02097/FUL
Location:	252 Bath Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Mixed use development comprising 8 flats (Class C3) on upper floors and a retail unit for flexible use as shop (Class A1) / restaurant, cafe (Class A3) on the ground floor.
View: Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		61	Update Report:		(i)     Additional consultation (circulated by email 19.12.18) (ii)          Street scene, provided by speaker

 

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application for the demolition of the building at 252 Bath Road, and erection of a three-storey building, with an A1/A3 communal unit at ground floor, and eight flats above.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, and the officer recommendation is to permit.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Scarborough, local resident, in objection

Accepts that there is room for development here, but objects to the three-storey building, the majority of which is in Langdon Road.  Little attention has been paid to the aspect, size and scale, as with the previous applications. The increased footprint and three-storey building make no attempt to respect the boundary transition, building right up to Langdon Road.  The Design and Access statement refers to the new building.  The Design and Access statement says that the new building ‘tapers’ but this is hard to detect.  The developer says there are other three-storey buildings close by – there are, but these quickly drop to two storeys on turning the corner into the residential street.   This proposal fails to marry Bath Road to Langdon Road – it is like a punch on the nose; there is no transition from the three-storey commercial to the residential.  The JCS requires particular attention to be paid to the character of the locality – its spatial quality, rhythms, density, scale, style and materials.  The developer says describes the proposal as ‘contemporary’, and uses this to reject all guidelines, and as an excuse to ignore all the surrounding buildings – the proposal is out of rhythm, out of scale, right  to the small boundary wall, in front of building line, and featuring metal and glass balustrades.   There is special protection for conservation areas, to ensure future development appropriate to the area – this is not.  The NPPF requires development to contribute to local character and distinctiveness – this does not.  It also says permission should be refused if the proposed development fails to improve the character and quality of an area - this does not.

 

Mr Campbell, agent, in support

This application is a resubmission, after refusal of the previous scheme in May.  That proposal was refused on design grounds and the impact of the building on properties in Francis Street; this scheme resolves those issues.  After the refusal of the previous proposal, the applicant sought advice from the conservation team, resulting in a better, more appropriate design.  Gloucestershire Design Review considers this proposal to be a significant improvement on original, supporting their report with comments, which were actioned.  There are significant differences between this and the previous schemes. The officer recommendation is to approve, the highways and conservation officers consider it OK, and it is supported by the Architects’ Panel.  Removal of the coach house means there is no loss of amenity in Francis Street.  Local residents continue to be concerned about parking, but there is no highways objection, and the original scheme not refused on that basis.  Cheltenham currently has no five-year housing land supply; this is sustainable development, providing eight dwellings.  The applicant has made every effort to change and improve the proposal, and is now presenting a scheme which provides redevelopment of brownfield site, housing, and ground floor retail.  Hopes that this will overcome any doubts, and that Members will now support the officer recommendation.

 

Councillor Sudbury

This is an important application, and would reiterate, as in May, that there is no objection here in principle – the site needs to be developed.  If the scheme was exciting, would be happy to support it, but this falls short.  In May, stated how welcome it is when applicants meet objectors and listen to their concerns.  This has not happened here, which is disappointing – there has been no engagement with the community.  The local residents are not NIMBYs, but proactive people who want to be engaged – but this has not taken place.  Welcomes the removal of the coach house, but we have to expect more than that – for a corner plot in a conservation area, is this the best we can do?  Someone mentioned ‘objector fatigue’, but we shouldn’t just accept this scheme; it’s better, but could still go further.

 

A key aspect is Langdon Road; this would benefit from a significant gap between No. 2 and the development entrance, giving a clear signal that the Langdon Road houses are historic and the development is not.  The proposed building is so close, it emphasises the difference.  It looks fake, and the three storeys are over-development.  The fenestration could be better handled; the grain of the area is for sash windows, and those proposed are disharmonious.

 

Has concern for the tree canopy.  This proposal is dealing with that part of the site better than it was, but is worried about a sitting area under a large tree. 

 

Has real concern about the hours of operation for the commercial unit on the ground floor; it could be a knitting shop, but could also be a café, with many deliveries on a busy junction.  Realises the previous proposal wasn’t refused on traffic grounds, but this is a difficult location.  When the end user is known, can an outline application be required, to provide more detail. 

 

This scheme is better than the previous one, but is it good enough?

 

Councillor Sudbury left the Chamber at this point, for the duration of this debate

 

 

Member debate:

MS:  can officers confirm on the block plan the lay-out of the parking within the site and where bin stores will be located?  Shares Councillor Sudbury’s concern about the retail element; deliveries will be needed, which could block off Langdon Road.  Residents are concerned about the lay-out and bin stores, and also the size of the entrance – highways officers have stated that visibility splays will be needed.

 

JS, in response:

-       There will be eight car-parking spaces to the rear of the site, and the bin store is on the right side.  Regarding the visibility splays, the drawing shows a car coming out of the site diagonally, which has not quite reached the edge of the site.  It needs visibility left and right at this point, which is why highways officers require a condition to ensure this;

-       There is existing retail use on the ground floor, which needs deliveries.  The question is how much more will be needed.  The proposed unit is 50m larger than the existing, although the current market does have outdoor storage space.

 

MS:  so if one car is leaving and one entering the site at the same time, there won’t be any blockage?

 

JS, in response:

-       The Architects’ Panel asked why such a large gap was required – it is for that reason.

 

PB: MS referred to deliveries, and loading and unloading – will this be on the Bath Road side or the Langdon Road side?

 

JS, in response:

-       There is a small parking bay fronting Bath Road.  Vans should not be loading from Langdon Road.

 

PB:  the site already has intensive commercial use, and this proposal is a massive improvement on the previous scheme – demonstrating the benefit of Planning Committee refusing a proposal and ending up with something better.  KS considers the current proposal is ‘not good enough’ but it is a massive improvement.  The coach house has gone, and the previous design was appalling, This is much better, a superior proposal which has taken on the comments of the Architects’ Panel and other experts.  Is annoyed when applicants speak to Members as it they were simple, in this case referring to the Council’s lack of five-year housing land supply – Members know that!  The proposed hours of operation - 7.00am to 11.00pm – are far more than the current use.  Would like to considerably limit these proposed hours – a 7.00am start would mean people/deliveries arriving from 6.00am; 8.00am would be better.  And 11.00pm at night is also excessive, as the noise will continue after that time.

 

SC:  knows the location well, and enjoyed the flower market which used to occupy the site, but realises that we have to move forward.  With the last proposal, there was concern about the tree, and the design forcing people onto the road on this busy corner, but this is OK now.  The buildings to the back, impacting on Francis Street, have been removed and the frontage to Langdon Road is better, though still not elegant.  Is surprised that there are no lifts in the three-storey flats, which will precludes families with prams etc.,  but considers this scheme a huge improvement overall, providing housing in a good location, with all objections addressed.  Will support the scheme.

 

BF:  there are a lot of issues with sustainable development here, and another coffee shop is the last thing Bath Road needs.  Still has a big concern with the design; it looks totally different to other properties in the area, and doesn’t fit in.  The public speaker is correct to say it doesn’t blend in.  It is different, modern, and doesn’t respect the area.  The scheme provides eight car-parking spaces, but these are all close to someone’s garden, and will cause nuisance with engines running, fumes etc.  The main issue, however, is the commercial aspect.  If the ground floor is used as a convenience store, the logistics will be a nightmare.  Uses Bath Road regularly, and has seen the mayhem caused by 30-tonne lorries delivering to the Co-op, with traffic backing up the main road and the side streets.  Parking is permitted on both sides of Langdon Road, and commercial vehicles already struggle to get up and down.  Bins will need to be brought out to the front for bin lorries to collect them, which will further constrain the road.  This is a new design, the coach house has gone which is good, but overall it is no better than before.  Is not keen.

 

PM:  is delighted to see a condition for an electric vehicle charging point; was not aware that these are now being included.  KS said that having a seating area under the tree could be dangerous, but there are plenty of cafes under trees in the Prom – is therefore not worried about this.  Is concerned about the opening hours, however, knowing the nightmare situation at Sainsbury’s in Cirencester Road, where deliveries and opening times cause disturbance to local people, including newspaper deliveries at 4.00am.  Would like to have more control over the options for the commercial unit – the potential use needs to be addressed, to balance the needs of the business and the residents.  Is not so concerned about parking, and it is not for the developer to solve the parking problems of the area.  This proposal won’t make it any worse. 

 

MC:  agrees that this proposal is an improvement on last time, but still has concerns.  It is very close to adjoining properties, very close to the pavement, and could well be overbearing.  Regarding the commercial use/deliveries/traffic, how much influence can Planning Committee have on future applications, or restrictions of use etc.  The applicant has no sympathy with the additional traffic the proposal will create; Bath Road is already a nightmare.  Regarding the hours of commercial use, there is a pub opposite, take-aways and cafes nearby – how much influence can Planning Committee have on what goes on there?

 

RW:  a number of members have commented on the improvement in the scheme since last time; cannot comment on this but can only consider whether what is proposed is good enough to meet design requirements for planning permission to be granted.  Cannot see any of the problems raised by Members or neighbours, from the design point of view, and therefore has no reason to reject the proposal.  Can see there may be issues regarding the type of business that might take place, and the potential issues with loading or unloading late at night in this residential area.  Would support a condition to limit hours to 8.00am to 9.00pm, for example?  It would be horrendous on this roundabout, a gateway to Cheltenham, to have a massive food lorry parked here for delivery.

 

JS, in response:

-       There has been a lot of discussion about deliveries and opening hours.  The hours set out in the report have been recommended by an environmental health officer, taking into account the commercial nature of the area, with many night-time users.  However, Members can look to change these hours if they are not happy and would like to further restrict the times;

-       The current use is commercial, and Members need to look at the change from what exists to what is proposed.  The existing use is A1, and the proposed use is A1/A3.  Do Members want a further condition to control this?

-       BF commented that there is no need for another café in Bath Road, but it is for the market to decide that.  A café would be an acceptable use in a commercial area;

-       Regarding parking spaces to the rear of the site, and the noise this will create, Langdon Road is a two-way street, with cars parked on both sides.  Parking cars to the rear of the development will be no worse than the existing parking close to adjacent residential properties;

-       To PM, Highways now include a standard condition re. electric vehicle changing points;

-       To MC’s question about whether use of the ground floor can be restricted, A1/A3 use has been specifically applied for by this applicant; any future changes away from this would require planning permission;

-       Regarding the bin store, this is situated on the right side of the site, through the archway.  And to comments about the collection of refuse, bin lorries already collect from this location so there will be no change here. 

 

BF:  A1 use covers convenience stores – this could be a Co-op, mini Sainsbury’s or Tesco.  There is chaos when the Bath Road Co-op gets deliveries, and at the Leckhampton Road Co-op on the roundabout – this is a main road into Cheltenham.  A1 use as a convenience would not be good, and the council will have no control if this proposal is approved tonight.  Cannot see how deliveries would made without bringing traffic to a stop, and delivery lorries cannot use Langdon Road.  It makes no commercial sense - if lorries can’t get into the unloading bay, they will probably wait in Langdon Road.  Continues to have concerns about the A1/A3 use, and about the design.  If approved and a small supermarket takes the retail space, this will not be good for the area; we need something that will complement the area.  Bath Road Market trades there now, but does not receive daily deliveries; A1 use could result in a very big shop with lots of deliveries, and with the roundabout and other barriers, and small lay-by, lorries cannot stop without blocking the road.

 

SC:  BF is right about the big lorries – these are an issue, and cause problems at the Co-op in Leckhampton Road.  At the moment, presumes that delivery lorries use the layby – is it possible to stipulate that delivery lorries must use the lay-by to the front, thereby limiting what goes into the retail space?

 

JS, in response:

-       To BF’s concerns that a small supermarket could take the retail space, the site already has A1 use and could operate as a supermarket from the existing building as it is today.  The proposal is to include A3, but is materially no different.  This is not a strong argument;

-       Members have referred to commercial bin lorries.  Bin lorries already need to collect domestic refuse from Langdon Road, and the fact that they will need to stop to access the communal bin store in the new development, and may cause a temporary obstruction, will make no difference to the current situation;

-       To SC, the lay-by on the Bath Road side is outside the application site, and we cannot therefore condition its use.

 

RW:  regarding the concern over A1 use, the site is already in A1 use, but it was suggested earlier that there should be limited hours of opening and deliveries, the primary reason being that the site is immediately adjacent to residential properties.  If a condition can be attached limiting the opening hours and delivery times, it is unlikely anyone would run an open-all-hours-type shop on the site.

 

GB:  PB first mooted concerns about delivery and opening hours.  Does he want to suggest a condition?

 

PB:   having listened to the debate, it is very difficult to justify, as the site has existing retail use, and Sainsbury’s and the Co-op in Bath Road already open to the proposed hours.  If a limit is put on the hours of opening and delivery on this site, it will challenge and potentially rule out any commercial element on the site.  Must assume that anyone who buys a house in this area knows there will be some disturbance from commercial business.  Will therefore reluctantly support the proposal as it stands, if officers can confirm that deliveries will be made through the front of the retail unit.

 

JS, in response:

-       Confirmed that they will.

 

GB:  as there are no other amendments or suggestions, will move to the vote.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT