Agenda item

Planning Application Documents - 24/01762/FUL

Planning Application Documents - 24/01763/FUL

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published and provided the following updates:

• An addendum to the applicant’s economic impact statement had been received that day. This had been independently reviewed and the findings of the review set out in the update report circulated to Members earlier in the day.
• The reason for refusal for both applications should reference section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 rather than section 16.
• The Drainage Officer has reviewed the recently submitted drainage strategy schemes and has raised continuing concerns about the high-level drainage strategy as it does not show the connection to the main public surface water drain.
• The Tree Officer has raised no overriding concern with the individual building scheme. Tree Officer comments had been received that day for application 24/01763/FUL. The Tree Officer recommended that should Members be minded to approve the development, a condition be introduced that installation of the screw pile foundations be carried out under arboricultural supervision to minimise impact on tree roots, with reports submitted to Gloucestershire Highways (Trees section) and CBC Tree Officers. He also highlighted that the four plane trees outside the proposed development form nearly half of the trees that make up the avenue on the Promenade and are considered to be one if not the primary arboriculture feature in the town centre. The proposed development should have no direct impact on these trees as long as safeguards and conditions are in place and future tree works are managed carefully.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector and the applicant.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

• He was representing the Cheltenham Civic Society and works as a Land Economist and chartered town planner. They are opposed to this development in principle so did not address the applications separately.
• The officers’ report carefully weighs the evidence against established policy and from a range of experts, including the conclusion of the Independent Planning Inspector and advises that the applications be refused. It reinforces the consistent decisions taken previously by the planning committee which were right to resist development that would destroy the setting of fine Grade II* listed buildings, damage the Conservation Area and reduce the attraction of the town to visitors and businesses.
• It is essential to safeguard Cheltenham’s heritage. The Council describes Cheltenham as Britain’s most complete Georgian town. Its architectural heritage and beauty underpin its success, supporting the town’s economy and future prosperity; they attract visitors, shoppers and festival goers; they appeal to dynamic businesses; and they improve the quality of life of locals and visitors alike. Cheltenham’s fine buildings and heritage are important not only for their intrinsic value but also for the wider contribution they make and must be protected.
• The damage the proposals would cause have been unanimously highlighted by national organisations like Historic England and the Georgian Group; local bodies like the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel; and council officers. All agree that these are grand Grade II* villas in a spacious setting and have concluded that they would be gravely damaged by the proposed development. This unanimous expert advice should be weighed very seriously in determining these applications.
• The Civic Society knows of no example when planning permission has been given for major development right in front of Grade II* buildings as is proposed here. If these proposals go ahead, views of the ground and lower ground floors would be blocked, and the facades and their composition would be much obscured.
• The illustrations of the scheme are very misleading since they show structures that are empty, and thus nearly transparent. In reality, they will be full of furniture, ancillary equipment and of course diners for most of the day and evening. The dominant feature will not be Forbes’ fine buildings, but the new structures and the dining arrangements within them.
• The value of these buildings mean that only clear evidence of wholly exceptional and extensive public benefit would be enough to justify the proposal. There is none. The applicant’s suggestion that there is public benefit as the proposals are an improvement on the existing tents is spurious as the tents were never consented and are unlawful. The true test is a comparison with the buildings and setting as they were before, and it is clear that by that comparison there is substantial disbenefit.
• The independent economic assessment confirms the proposals will not generate wider economic benefit. There is no evidence that No. 131 is a destination restaurant that induces additional visits to Cheltenham and no evidence of positive impacts for the wider local economy. The reality is that if the number of diners at No. 131 were reduced, they and the associated jobs would almost certainly move elsewhere in the town. As the applicants’ submissions shows, the tents have created profits for the business rather than value for the town. The belated amendments to the applicant’s economic statement do nothing to address these points.
• There are other development alternatives that can be explored if these damaging proposals are rejected. 

The applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

• There has been overwhelming public support for the proposals, with a petition signed by over 2000 people and 81% of feedback on the planning website in support. In contrast only 24 people have submitted objections to the proposal.
• Frontages of other buildings on the Promenade are decimated by car parking, plastic signage and illuminated signs in windows. None of these are in keeping with the Georgian setting.
• A conservatory development was retrospectively passed by the planning committee (Settebello restaurant on Imperial Square), despite being against a beautiful Regency building on the Promenade. The council have also erected a similar structure on the back of the Town Hall without planning permission. Neither development used materials fitting for their respective buildings.
• The applicant has invested £50m in Cheltenham and created over 1000 jobs because he loves Cheltenham. He has won 2 civic awards for the architectural work carried out within the town on the restoration of The George and No. 131.
• The proposals aim to create a Mayfair/Paris-style environment to enhance Cheltenham with a beautiful garden that is affordable and accessible for everyone and used by both residents and tourists. This development would be unique in Cheltenham, the Cotswolds and the UK and would provide something different that would bring people to the town.
• Knight Frank’s independent assessment is that “People like Julian Dunkerton of Superdry, the Bamford family at Daylesford and Jeremy Clarkson have opened top-quality shops, pubs and businesses that have moved the dial for everyone.” They believe that No .131 has made Cheltenham different, desirable and exciting. It has regularly been cited as a place people love within Cheltenham.
• The economic reality is that this is a highly challenging time for the hospitality sector and there are not people or funding available to invest in these historical buildings without profitable businesses. The business has lost £1m over the last two years, these proposals seek to keep it viable and refusal could put 100 jobs at risk and risk the future of the building. The Queen’s has been put up for sale but can’t find a buyer and needs significant investment, particularly to deal with asbestos and without changes this could also be the fate of No. 131. The Liberal Democrat’s own report reflected the economic impact of the challenges for the hospitality industry.
• The building had stood empty for 10 years prior to purchase and significant investment was needed to bring it back to life. The applicant was driven to take on this project despite the expense by a sense of shame that Cheltenham was allowing this beautiful building to go unused.
• No. 131 is a sponsor of the Cheltenham Festivals, Ian George (co-executive of Cheltenham Festivals) has said, No. 131 is a “long-standing supporter of the Festivals, we fully support its development to ensure it remains a key part of the Festivals.”  Ed Chamberlain, leading ITV Sports broadcaster, said “No. 131 is a big part of Cheltenham Week, the hospitality is just as important as the racing. It’s prime location, outside space and atmosphere is legendary.”
  
  

In  response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

• Some groundwork will be required for both proposals to install the screw pile foundations and to dig drainage channels around the edge of the buildings which includes a perforated pipe that filters water to the tree roots. The Tree Officer has recommended n arboricultural watching brief take place during this work.
• The marquees had approval when original erected in June 2020 in line with the relaxation of temporary structure restrictions during the Covid pandemic. The relaxation rules have now ceased, the marquees should have been removed and so they are now unauthorised structures. An appeal for their retention has been dismissed.
• The NPPF sets out a public benefit test where harm to a listed building has been identified. The harm caused to the listed buildings is considered to be at “less than substantial harm”. Members must consider whether the public benefits of this proposal would outweigh that harm. Officers and consultees consider that there are limited public benefits to these proposals. The applicant’s economic impact assessments have been independently reviewed to consider No. 131’s continued contribution to vitality of the town centre, job retention and supply chain but found these to be limited. The evidence base did not prove the business’ wider impact on the local hospitality sector or economic vitality of the town centre in general. The local planning authority has a legislative duty through the Planning Acts to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the historic interest and significance of listed buildings when granting planning permission. There is a strong statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development that will harm the setting of a listed building and the committee must decide whether there is justification in overriding the legal presumptions in favour of this preservation.
• Should the application be refused the applicant may still be able to erect a temporary marquee for up to 120 days in line with class BB of the General Permitted Development Order, which allows additional days for the provision of a temporary structure within the curtilage of a listed building.
• Currently No. 131 is only authorised for dining and drinking outside building 131, so if the applicant wished to extend this outside the fronts or rear of the other buildings they would need to apply for planning permission.
  
  

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

• Members thanked officers for the well-produced and unbiased report that gave significant weight to a range of considerations before coming to a final recommendation. They also thanked both speakers for the perspectives provided.
• Paragraph 212 of the NPPF states: “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.” Members highlighted the threat to the continuing conservation of the building if the business was no longer viable and it fell into disrepair. Consideration was given to how best to preserve heritage assets into the future.
• Members discussed the expense of maintaining historic buildings outside of taxpayer funding and the need for profitable businesses to foot the cost of renovating those buildings. The difficulty for the council in maintaining the Municipal Offices was noted as an example.
• Concern was raised about the potential loss of jobs if No. 131 went out of business and the significant impact on regular people within Cheltenham during a cost-of-living crisis. The difficulty in finding employment for young people and the impact on mental health was highlighted. The economic challenges faced as a country were also raised.
• The importance of business owners in maintaining Cheltenham’s vibrant town centre was highlighted. Economically Cheltenham is performing 5% above the national average and businesses like No. 131 add to the culture of the town and bring in income. Members expressed their thanks to those investing in Cheltenham.
• However, it was also noted that the Festivals and Racing play a much more significant role in bringing people to Cheltenham, and attendance would not be impacted by the loss of No. 131.
• It was noted that some of the pictures provided during the applicant’s presentation were misleading as the hoardings are only displayed during the night-time. However, there was general agreement that many of the buildings on the Promenade are not well-maintained and their frontages are damaged by the presence of car parking, hoardings, plastic signage and illuminations.
• Members raised concerns about the designs submitted, feeling they were too heavy, covered significant and historic parts of the building and would permanently impact the historic setting. It was noted that alternative options, designs and use of the space was possible.
• The proposed installation of photovoltaic panels was praised in light of the climate crisis.
• Members noted that the original conversion of the building after it had stood empty for 7 years had included significant work to address the dilapidation of the building. Including replacement of all windows, internal and external doors and the installation of a sweeping staircase.  Conservation had clearly been a priority during this development and the Civic Society had applauded the restoration of the property.
• It was highlighted that the applicant was aware of the listed building restrictions when the property was purchased and the opportunity for external structures only emerged because of restrictions being relaxed during the Covid pandemic.
• Members were impressed during the planning view by the quality of the hotel, restaurants and bars, and the thriving wedding business. The reliance of the business on the marquees was challenged and it was noted that the applicant would still be able to install temporary structures for 4 months of the year.
• It was noted that these designs should not be considered as an alternative to the existing marquees as these do not have current permission and are scheduled to be removed regardless of the decision on the application.
• The buildings were designed to be set in a garden frontage – these Grade II* listed Regency villas have graced Cheltenham for 200 years and this important setting and the grandeur of the buildings would be lost permanently if the application was approved. These types of buildings represent 5.8% of all listed buildings, they are an important and valuable asset with an impact on Cheltenham’s reputation as the best-preserved Regency town. Councillors’ responsibility as guardians of both Cheltenham’s buildings and people was emphasised.
• It was highlighted that the officers’ recommendations reflect planning policy, the NPPF, the Local Plan, the Joint Core Strategy, section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act, and the views of the inspector. The recommendation was also supported by expert advice from Historic England, the Georgian Society, and the Civic Society.
• It was noted that it is within the committee’s gift to take a pragmatic approach to the decision. Members discussed that it was not always possible to maintain heritage unchanged and it was noted that concessions have been allowed in the past, for example in the raising of the street level on another section of the Promenade.
• Several Members highlighted how difficult they were finding reaching a decision on these applications.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement & Compliance explained that the harm of the development has been assessed on the upper end of ‘less than substantial’ it needs to be weighed against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) public benefits test. Public benefits of the proposed developments considered include job retention, supplier spend, continued use of listed buildings, and contribution to the overall vitality of the town centre hospitality sector. Officers consider these public benefits to be limited and likely to have existed prior to the erection of the marquees and expansion of the restaurant and bar. The NPPF requires that great weight be attached to an asset’s conservation and in this case the public benefits are not considered to outweigh the identified harm.

The Legal Officer reminded Members that the NPPF states that: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF requires the local authority to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse application 24/01762/FUL:

For: 6
Against: 4
Abstentions: 1

The committee voted for the officer’s recommendation to refuse application 24/01762/FUL.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse application 24/01763/FUL:

For: 4
Against: 7
Abstentions: 0

The committee voted against the officer’s recommendation to refuse application 24/01763/FUL. The officer’s recommendation was rejected in relation to paragraph 212 of the NPPF, the less than significant harm, weighing it against the public benefits in a time of economic crisis, and to enable the conservation of the heritage asset.

Councillor Allen proposed a motion that application 24/01763/FUL be permitted, citing the economic and public benefits in a time of economic crisis, enabling the conservation of the heritage asset, and weighing these against the less than substantial harm in relation to paragraph 212 of the NPPF. The motion included conditions recommended by the Tree Officer, resolution of the drainage concerns, and other conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair. The motion was seconded by Councillor Oliver.

The matter then went to the vote on Councillor Allen's motion that application 24/01763/FUL be permitted, citing the economic and public benefits in a time of economic crisis, enabling the conservation of the heritage asset, and weighing these against the less than substantial harm in relation to paragraph 212 of the NPPF, subject to:

• The condition recommended by the Tree Officer regarding arboricultural supervision of screw pile foundation installation
• Resolution of the drainage concerns
• Other conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair

For: 8
Against: 3
Abstentions: 0

The committee voted to permit application 24/01763/FUL subject to stated conditions and delegation arrangements.