Agenda item

Planning application documents

Item 5b:  Beaufort Arms, London Road

Officer introduction

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the case, at Committee at the request of Councillor Savage and the Civic Society.  There is extant planning permission at this site, it is considered a sustainable location within the PUA, and that while local concerns are noted, officers consider it acceptable and there is no highways objection.

Public Speaking

Marcus Evans of SFPlanning spoke in support of the application.

Member questions

In response to questions from Members, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that:

-          the neighbour’s concerns about loss of light were taken into consideration, and the scheme was revised accordingly to lose one of the proposed studio apartment; the scheme is now comparable to the extant permission, which was considered acceptable;

-          there is no space in the site to turn a car; no parking space is proposed and the assumption must be that cars will not visit the site;

-          the applicant did not provide a Design and Access statement setting out the rationale in developing the site – these do not usually form part of local validation requirements;

-          the shared driveway to the side is the joint responsibility of all residents with access rights over it; it is not part of the public highway;

-          the national recommendation of 50 sq metres for accommodation occupied by two people is for guidance only – not a statutory requirement;  Cheltenham has no minimum space standards;

-          the scheme of delegation as set out means that if a consultee objects within a certain time period, a committee decision is triggered – it doesn’t need the support of a councillor as well.  In this case, the Civic Society objected, and Councillor Savage requested a committee decision on behalf of local residents.

Member debate

Members raised the following issues:

-          it is disingenuous to expect anyone moving to these properties to be out-and-out cyclists without a car; car owners are therefore likely to be discriminated against;

-          re. traffic, there are already issues with beer delivery trucks and Chinese Take-Away customers.  There is often a line of parked cars all along the pavement, even when the pub isn’t open.  This application won’t necessarily make it worse, but people need and will have cars;

-          there are no policies regarding the number of car parking spaces, but Gloucestershire Highways insist vehicles should have safe access onto the highway, which will be difficult here; parking will have an adverse effect on neighbouring amenities;

-          one-bedroomed apartments are in high demand in Cheltenham, we have no five-year housing supply, and these will be popular, but they are exceptionally small, below 50 square metres – tenants will effectively be living in the kitchen, which could be harmful effect to well-being;

-          the bin store seems inadequate to service three new flats, the pub, and the flats over the pub;

-          how will the pub’s future storage requirements be accommodated?

-          the design is innovative but a lighter, reflective render would benefit other properties;

-          the approved drawings show a fire escape and access to the side, the proposed drawings don’t – if the fire escape has been removed, will the proposal meet building regulations?

In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that:

-          bin and cycle storage for the apartment building will be separate to that for the pub and apartments; it is sufficient size for the number of apartments;

-          grey render was approved in the extant permission, so it would be unreasonable to ask for a change of materials with this application;

-          parking is clearly a big concern, and officers have sympathy for local residents; there are similar situations in many areas of Cheltenham, close to town.  However, as set out in the report, this is a sustainable location and in the absence of parking standards or any objection from Highways, it would be difficult to support as a refusal reason at appeal.  In addition, the small number of additional units could not be considered to have a severe impact on the current situation;

-          the fire escape on the pub building shown on the comparative elevation has been removed during the refurbishment of the pub; the current drawings show what has been approved by building control officers.

Members made the following further points:

-          although the apartments are small, Cheltenham needs one-bed accommodation, and the small size should be reflected in the price, making the flats affordable;

-          concerns remain as to whether the compact nature of the dwellings but presumably people won’t buy them if they don’t feel they are big enough;

-          the applicant should be congratulated on saving the very popular pub – which probably generated more traffic in its heyday than the current proposal will;

-          this is a good, clean, contemporary design;

-          as the lane to the side is a private shared drive and the Highways Authority has no jurisdiction over it, parking issues could well arise, but this is the case all over town, and it will be a police matter if any kind of obstruction arises.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

0 abstention

PERMIT