Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MP introduced the application as above.  The building is locally indexed, prominent in the conservation area, and has most recently been used as a care home.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley, due to residents’ concerns.  The Architects’ Panel is not supportive.  With S106 contributions towards affordable homes and replacement tree planting, the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mark Godson, agent, in support

SF Planning was pleased to be approached regarding this site by a local developer with a track record for delivering high-quality development, a convincing architect, and recognition of the importance of Dowty House – the aim being to re-integrate it into the surroundings rather than further isolate it.  Is grateful for constructive feedback during the process, with key amendments requested by the Civic Society and Architects’ Panel. These include a reduction in scale and massing on norther edge of the development, and separation of the development from Dowty House on Monson Avenue, thus restoring the original rear elevation compared to the existing ugly arrangement.  The development ensures Dowty House will be enhanced, refurbished and maintained for many years.  It meets all the council’s criteria re amenity standards set out in Policy CP5, with generous landscaped courtyard.  In consultation with the tree officer, a robust and detailed assessment was made before proposing the removal of a tree on Monson Avenue – which has enable a much better layout and design, and facilitated a large contribution to replacement tree planting in the borough.   The proposal also provides an affordable housing contribution, as explained in the officer report. 

Recognises that some local residents are concerned regarding parking provision, and although County Highways have approved the proposals as they stand, the applicant is keen to provide realistic options for residents, through provision of bikes and secure bike storage, bus passes, and sustainable transport vouchers – this can all be secured through a suitably-worded condition to secure a travel plan.  They have also confirmed with NCP Car Parks the availability of season passes for future residents which could be provided through the travel plan if deemed necessary.

The proposal has been amended in response to constructive advice, designed to enhance the conservation area whilst making effective and efficient use of the previously developed land.  It will be delivered by a local developer and architect who have demonstrated good will and understanding, and are both known for very high-quality schemes. 

Councillor Hobley, on behalf of local residents

It is clear that a lot of local residents support redevelopment of the site in some form.  Dowty House is an important and attractive historic building for all of Cheltenham, and it is absolutely vital that a future use is found for the building and the site to protect the fabric for years to come – it is too important to be allowed to fall into disrepair. Supports the redevelopment as do most residents, and is comfortable with the site being used for residential purposes.  Has no objection to the architectural style, materials, and design concept.  This firm has made excellent contributions to Cheltenham; likes the modern architecture and the high style of design.  Knows the area as local ward member, and as the building is no longer suitable as a care home, realises new uses need to be found.  However, residents have raised a number of issues for committee to consider, and it is right that they have their legitimate concerns raised. 

Eight car-parking spaces are being proposed for 28 flats.  This is woefully inadequate.  It is assumed that residents will live without cars, but this is an aspiration, not a reality.  The applicant may have made enquiries with NCP but new residents will still be able to apply for parking permits, making the situation in St Paul’s even worse – the narrow local roads cannot tolerate further traffic.  The entrance to the development car park is directly opposite the entrance to the NCP car park – getting vehicles in and out already causes problems in Monson Avenue, Clarence Square and St Paul’s Road. 

There are also concerns about overlooking, loss of light, privacy, and the large scale of the development, as well as the introduction of a tree in the north east corner of the site which could produce a dark area.  The concerns of local residents have to be weighed against the officer report – they will have to live with this development for years.  Members need to ask whether this proposal will be allowed to blight residents’ lives, or be sent back for further work.

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

Member debate:

BF:  has no objection to the design, which largely preserves the gothic Dowty House, but the biggest problem is car parking – as KH said, what is permitted against the reality.  This area has problems day after day – anyone who has lived in or visited the area knows the problems with traffic.  With only eight car-parking spaces, residents will require on-street parking permits.  In Northfield Terrace, there are parking issues with residents who may have a permit but cannot park in the area.  It is the same in many areas of the town.  We have to deal with the reality.  And the future massive development in the car park next door has to be taken into consideration.  If the car-parking is addressed, would be able to support the proposal, but cannot vote for what is before the Committee tonight.  The agent talked about a deal with NCP car parks – if this deal is done, would be able to support.

PB:  we’re coming to a situation where we have to start looking at housing applications in a different way.  We have to design and build around people, not cars.  If this application is refused tonight, the applicant will go to appeal.  To have spaces for 28 vehicles, the whole site would have to be tarmac’d – which is not what we want to see.  At the Axiom development, no spaces are provided – people living there don’t use cars, and anyone buying town-centre properties will appreciate that they cannot keep a car.  It can work everywhere.  This is a great scheme; the applicant has engaged with officers, the Architects’ Panel and the Civic Society; and the architects have won awards over the years for their schemes.  They have worked with the existing building, and the courtyard is a fantastic concept.  Will the red brick wall be retained?  Notes no contribution towards education – the previous scheme for 13 units is contributing £50k – is it assumed there will be no children in any of the flats.  Notes the reference to a government social housing investment scheme and social rented properties – what does this mean?  Also notes the travel plan – what is this, and what does the coordinator do?

DS:  if this proposal is accepted, has any thought been given to the allocation of the eight parking spaces?  Will it be first come first served, or will they be allocated to individual apartments? It could be a disaster…

KS:  it is brilliant that Dowty House is being retained.  Is not keen on the scale of the addition to the back, but realises that this isn’t a reason to refuse.  Regarding parking, this is an issue for local residents, but realises that this sustainable location will encourage non-car use.  Is not happy with the east elevation, and notes in the officer report that others picked up on this.  The Civic Society point out that it will obscure the east façade of the existing Dowty House, which relates to concern relating to whether or not it is a heritage asset.  This is not clear – the officer and conservation officer do not agree – and needs to be clarified.  Cannot see any reason why extensions are needed to the east side; we don’t know what will eventually happen to the car park, but the view to Dowty House will be obscured by this carbuncle – it looks like an engine room on the side of the building, and is not needed.  Suggests the decision is deferred, giving the architect the opportunity to redesign.  Would question any other reasons for refusal – parking is not an issue.  Thanks the applicant for refurbishing the building, but as it currently stands, the building will be harmed, and the lay-out could be amended.

MP, in response:

-       To PB, regarding an education contribution, the S106 officer at the County assessed the development as creating less than one pre-school, primary and secondary place, and under the guidelines, a requirement for a contribution is therefore not needed.  We can only take this advice;

-       The housing enabling officer has stated that if viability is not a concern, we would be seeking the suggested level of contribution;

-       To DS, is not aware that the eight car-parking spaces will be allocated to individual properties;

-       To KS, Dowty House is on the Local Index, but it is not a designated heritage asset; the conservation area in which it is situated is a designated heritage asset;

-       Regarding the east elevation of Dowty House, the existing extension is a fairly poor single storey building; officers feel a very limited amount of the east elevation will be obscured.  Is not sure where Civic Society concerns came from;

-       Regarding a travel plan, this is an NPPF definition, setting out sustainable objectives to be regularly reviewed.

MS:  has no problem with the lay-out and design, but the problem with car parking could have been dealt with by the inclusion of undercroft parking with the buildings on top.  This is so much easier, and would make the apartments easier to sell.  People will have cars, and will find other places to put them if no on-site parking is provided.  Cannot believe this proposal for 28 flats only has eight car-parking spaces.  The aspiration may be to reduce car use in the town centre, but this is not the real world, and will cause constant conflict until we accept it.

PM:  likes the scheme, and is relatively relaxed about the eight car-parking spaces.  Considers the way we use cars will dramatically change over the next ten years, with Uber etc.  The only question about the eight spaces is what will happen when one or more resident is disabled?  They will need a designated disabled car-parking space.  This could be contentious.

KS:  regarding the east extension, looked at the photo, and agrees that the existing single storey extension is not appealing.  But as a single storey, no-one objects, whereas a two-storey extension will be overbearing and obscure the detail of the tower and chimneys.  Can’t part of the extension be built behind – replacing the existing single storey.

RW:  doesn’t agree with PM and PB regarding parking.  Yes, this is a town centre location and people with no cars will be happy to live there, but it is not about car use – it is about car ownership.  We need to learn that lesson.  In Cheltenham, the idea seems to be that if we reduce the places to park, people will have less cars and the problem will go away.  Is at a loss to understand how displacement won’t be a problem, and cannot support this proposal on those grounds alone.

AH:  always tries not to reiterate points already made, but parking is a major element here.  The site cannot be considered in isolation; it will impact on the whole area.  Eight spaces won’t be enough, even if only half the apartment owners have cars.  People will have cars and there will be displacement.  Will vote for the application, as the town needs more residential units, but we need to do something about residential developments without sufficient parking, particularly in the town centre. 

BF:  traffic plans exist across the town, including one at GCHQ, but they are not enforceable. PB says we need to get away from dependency on cars – agrees, but this application is before us today.  It will be possible to live in this development without a car, but not to do the weekly shop etc.  As other members have said, there is a difference between aspiration and reality here.  Dependence on cars is a reality; no suitable alternative gives us what we want.  Eight spaces for this number of apartments isn’t enough; car ownership and car usage are different things.  A lot of people own cars which they don’t use every day, and need space to park.

MP, in response:

-       There is no dedicated disabled parking bay, and we cannot insist on this as there is no parking standard at the moment.  The local Highways Authority did not raise any objection to this, even without a traffic plan;

-       If the application is refused on parking grounds, there will be no support from the local authority at any future appeal;

-       To KS, there is a new addition on the east side.

SC:  can officers enlarge on the agent’s comment that the developer is in consultation with the NCP, making a deal where residents have access to cheap parking?  This would resolve the problem.

MP, in response:

-       The developer has been in positive talks with NCP, but we cannot control the outcome.  The Highways Authority comments have been based on the eight available spaces, which officers consider to be acceptable.  If talks continue, a deal with NCP could be included in a travel plan, but there is no guarantee that it will continue in the future.

Vote on KS’s move to defer, due to the design, harm to the heritage asset and conservation area, and appearance/mass/scale of the extension to the east elevation

1 in support

12 in objection

NOT CARRIED

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

6 in objection

PERMIT