Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction

DO described the application for the conversion of a number of floors of GII listed property at 27 Promenade, currently trading as Radley’s, with retail on all four levels, fronting the pedestrian area of the Promenade, and with rear access from Post Office Lane.  

The proposal is to convert floors 1, 2 and 3 to a single residence, with a  modest staircase from Post Office Lane for a pedestrian entrance and otherwise no external changes.  There is no longer a need for the upper floors to be used as retail, and this relatively modest example of an adaption is part of an emerging pattern in the changing retail world.  Officers are having active discussions with different land-owners across town, considering how to introduce more and different uses to town centre to increase diversity and footfall.  This application proposes changes which are sympathetic to the listed building; the conservation officer is happy and the Civic Society consider it to be exemplar, and would like to see more similar schemes.  The recommendation is to grant consent. 

Member debate

RH:  requested that this application come to committee, not because she has any objection to it but because she welcomes it and hopes to see more similar applications of this type in the future.   It is a good use of the town centre, the residential use making it more diverse and busy.  Is really pleased to hear such enthusiasm from the Civic Society on this.

BF:  supports RH’s comments on this.  Remembers the last residential property on the Prom going some 20 years ago, opposite Imperial Gardens, but since  then, town centre buildings have started to return to residential use, such as the flat over the coffee shop (former Dobells),  and now Imperial Square,  once 90% offices, returning to flats, and sometimes complete houses.  Fully  supports this application; it is an excellent idea.

[GB:  failed to inform Committee at the beginning of the meeting that it is being recorded but not broadcast, for training purposes; the recording will be held for six months.  Members understand that their presence at the meeting constitutes their consent to being filmed.  Also, the electronic voting system tested out at the last meeting will continue, but for the time being with a  show of hands alongside.]

JP:  fully supports the application; it is absolutely the right thing to do, and apart from the metal staircase at the back, there will be no outward change to the building.  One minor concern is that when the applicant originally proposed two dwellings, the heritage comments were a little scathing, and a little discouraging for the applicant.  There needs to be a realisation that whilst these houses were built in the 1860s, lifestyle was very different then; there should be more freedom to allow developers to develop dwellings which support modern living.  When Royal Crescent in Bath was built, it was just the outside walls - owners were able to put in the inside walls to suit their particular lifestyle, and it should be same here.  Conservation officers are concerned about the removal of historic material, but only the people inside will see it, as the buildings are not open to public.  Feels that there needs to be a little more relaxation on this.

DO, in response: 

-          conservation is traditionally about conserving buildings, and as town centres change, with a lot of listed buildings and conservation areas in Cheltenham,  we need to learn to adapt to that change;

-          the bigger picture is that these many of the buildings are GII-listed by Historic England;  there is a role for CBC to talk with Historic England about this issue, as change needs to happen and inevitably some historic fabric will be lost, altered or changed as we allow buildings to evolve as they have done in the past.  Is keen to keep pushing for this; CBC’s conservation officers are keen too.  This is the first application of this type for a while, and is part of a learning exercise.

SW:  the debate is moving a little away from the start, but on that point, would remind Members that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the whole country was very free with bringing in the modern, and there is not a member who doesn’t scathe attempts at modernisation in a lot of town centres, especially  Gloucester.   Conservation is very important, and there needs to be balance between keeping the outside as it was built, and not introducing 1960s and 70s boring, square architecture; it is important not to lose that, and to preserve what makes Cheltenham Cheltenham.

PM:  member training is taking place after the meeting, and would just say that this is a really interesting and good application to bring to Committee.  The more usual reason Members ask for a Committee decision is because the officer is not entirely on the same wavelength as the neighbours or Members, but there are other reasons too, and this is the only way to have a debate on trends emerging in the town.  This is a perfectly sensible and good use of the planning agenda – how else going to debate these trends?

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support LBC

13 in support FUL

PERMIT - unanimous