Agenda item

22/00728/LBC The Vineyard, Berkeley Street, Cheltenham GL52 2SX


The conservation officer introduced the report as published.


There were two speakers, one the agent on behalf of the applicant and the other a Ward Councillor.


The agent made the following points in support:

·         The applicant has owned and maintained the property for over thirty years.

·         The works that are being referred to were carried out in 2020 as the asphalt was peeling away.  The works were carried out quickly to prevent damage to the property.

·         The lead replacement was recommended to the applicant by a stone mason as the only viable option.

·         Since the work has been carried out the internal of the building has remained dry and well maintained.

·         The same materials have been used for other listed buildings in the town.

·         It has been over-looked in the officer report that the same parapet repairs have been carried out on the Municipal Offices, The Queens Hotel, 131 The Promenade, houses in Royal Crescent and in Berkeley Place.

·         Since 1991 the owner has been proud of the renovation works they have carried out on the property, it is the best preserved property on the street.

·         The applicant runs a successful business from the property with 12 employees, this significantly aids the upkeep of the building in the long term.

·         This is a traditional parapet repair which is in line with the NPPF and the development plan.



Cllr Clark who spoke as Ward Councillor made the following points:

·         The Conservation Officer has made very sound arguments about why this should not be permitted and the applicant should have applied for planning permission before carrying out the work, however she believed that the application should be permitted.

·         There were mitigating circumstances with this application and a precedent for this kind of cladding has already been set.

·         Without the investment of private owners, the council would not be able to maintain the upkeep of heritage buildings and this building is in excellent repair both inside and out.

·         There is a danger that if this application is refused it will discourage private ownership of Grade 2 listed buildings.  People should be supported who keep buildings such as this in good repair.

·         The new roof has been put on the property as water was damaging the fabric of the building, and has insulated the building in a much better way than it was previously.

·         It will have to be accepted that there will be retro fitting of heritage properties to meet the challenges of climate change.

·         There has been exactly this type of repair to many other buildings in the town with the same style of cladding including the Municipal Offices.


The responses to Member questions were as follows:

·         It is difficult to tell if the repairs have been detrimental, water ingress could be a problem, sometimes damage does not get found until years later.

·         The officer is not aware that the physical integrity of the building has suffered.

·         There was no consultation prior to the work being carried out, Section 9 of the act does mean that you can carry work out in an emergency although you do need to seek consultation

·         With the existing properties that have had the same work done there has been no enforcement action taken to remove the lead, however there are currently eight cases that are pending action, although it might not be prudent to pursue all of them.

·         The work that has been done does have a detrimental view to the street scene, the lead could be painted, but it will still be lead covering stone which needs to breathe naturally.

·         There was also clarification that Members have to deal with the application in front of them.

·         It could not be confirmed that the lead was visual from the outside of the Municipal Offices. 

·         There was clarification that lead is not traditionally used for covering stone.

·         The reverse of the parapet can be partially lined and cut into the stone.

·         There was an application for a similar property that was refused and upheld on appeal.


The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

·         Many properties have lead flashing; the sensible thing would be to permit as it will secure the future of the building.

·         The building does not look awful and out of place.  If it is causing a problem with the building that is a concern.  Do not want to see a property failing just because it looks a bit strange.

·         From the owners perspective they identified a problem, took advice and followed it, and although they did not seek permission they did solve the problem.  If the application is refused then it will send a message that this type of work is not acceptable.  If you have a solution to a problem the Council might not approve.

·         Hopefully this issue should be able to be resolved without taking any drastic action.  With a listed building the planning authority should be consulted.

·         If there had been nothing done to the property there would have been considerable damage caused.  As there is no way to condition the application it makes for a difficult decision.

·         As the applicant has owned the property for thirty years there have obviously been conversations with the planning department on previous matters and it is therefore unfortunate that the process wasn’t followed on this matter.  The onus is on the owner to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair.  As other properties in the borough have had a similar repair made is it fair to single this application out?

·         People need to be supported who own listed buildings.


At this point in the meeting, the Chair, having stated in the debate that he lived in close proximity to the application site and then taken advice from the legal advisor, declared an interest in the application and left the chamber for the rest of the item.  The Vice- Chair took over the Chair for the rest of the item. 


The matter went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse:

For: 4

Against: 4

Abstention: 1


The casting vote was then made by the Vice-Chair in the Chair who voted for the recommendation to refuse.




Supporting documents: