Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Councillors Oliver and Wheeler left the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant, and the ward member.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Speaking on the behalf of residents of Wellington Square which is recognised as one of the finest Regency squares in Cheltenham, if not nationally. It is a heritage asset to the town and is of historical importance. It lies within a conservation area, is truly unique and has been safeguarded for almost 200 years. The residents are, rightly, subject to stringent planning restrictions in relation to even the smallest details on their own properties.

-       Understand the shortage of housing stock and the pressure upon the council and accept that the plot of land in question is potentially suitable for development. From the outset we made a proposal which would permit development of a new house, following the line of the most relevant property – that of the close next-door property, Rosehill House. We believe this to be a reasonable compromise intended to minimize harmful impact, but it has been ignored.

-       There has been widespread opposition:

o   Firstly, from a very large numbers of residents.

o   Then, the independent planning consultant report (David Jones, January 2025 and March 2025) concluded that the proposed development and development revised conflicted with policy and identified a compromise: re-siting of the proposed dwelling to the eastern boundary adjoining Wellington Lane was the answer. It would maintain the openness of the site, alleviate concerns regarding overlooking/amenity issues and reflect a type of development more consistent with the historic environment.

o   The Planning Officers originally told the applicants to re-think because the proposal in “this sensitive location was considered to be harmful to the character of the area” concluding that it was too big for the plot and the design approach was inappropriate.

o   The Cheltenham Architects Panel advised it to be “an over development of the plot… and was harmful to the wider street scene.” They have not been consulted again on the revised proposal.

o   There have been a number of recent developments: the applicants have sold (subject to contract) the Garden House, the new owners’ intentions are not known; the owner of Rosehill House sold the property due to the stress caused by the applications and the potential harm to their property if granted; the new owner has sent a firm objection and the applicant’s architect, whose house is situated directly opposite this controversial proposal, has also put his house on the market at one point.

o   The Civic Society opposes the application, as do both our ward councillors.

-       I refer you to two principal grounds for refusal:

o   Design, layout and siting -

§  The siting of the dwelling house in the revised proposal remains the same but has not materially lowered in height and still maintains an obtrusive and forward building line.

§  The revised design provides for a house which is marginally smaller but there is now a far larger two-storey garage/Coach House (increased in size from 28m2 to 126m2 with a west facing balcony at the upper floor); the overall increase in floor area is 30%.

So:  

§  The garage is now effectively a second building capable of being a dwelling contrary to the planning officer’s advice that one single home was suitable.

§  The massing has increased such that it would still constitute an overly prominent and discordant feature. Remember the Architects panel said this could be an overdevelopment in limited space.

§  The proposal will neither preserve nor enhance the conservation area and will negatively impact the setting of the listed buildings: that was what the planning officer had meant by the “sensitive nature” of the location. This harmful impact to heritage assets (the conservation area, the listed buildings of Wellington Square and the character of the area) is contrary to policy.

§  We fundamentally disagree with the assertion made by the planning officers that the proposed siting of the dwelling would respect the historic and established building line of the properties on Wellington Square. The historic line relates to the historic houses on Wellington Square. The reasoning is flawed. That line was interrupted when it came to build Rosehill House, which was set back from that historic line and for good reason: Rosehill is of contemporary design of a wholly different character to the historic line of houses. It sets a precedent as to how to successfully accommodate contemporary buildings into a conservation area and an historic environment. Consistency is required here.

o   Impact Upon Neighbouring Amenity - The window-to-window separation distance (proposal to Rosehill) remains well below 21m in breach of the standard required. It is not cured by frosting of windows or by screening from trees. The existing trees will be cut down and will take 20 years to regrow.

-       These plans are in in breach of the Framework. There is no benefit to the scheme, and they respectfully ask the Committee to refuse these plans and request that the owners resubmit plans for an appropriate property in line with Rosehill.

The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Speaking in support of the application on behalf of the family, who lived at Garden House for over 45 years. They were respected and well loved by their community, and they loved their home and their town.

-       Over the years they were regularly approached by developers looking to acquire a plot of their garden. The family has always been keen to prevent developers putting a block of flats or inappropriate buildings in the garden.

-       They were pillars of the community. They loved Cheltenham and were active members of many organisations such as the Civic Society and Friends of Pittville. As regular church goers, they were instrumental in keeping and turning St Mary’s parish church into a minster.

-       Unfortunately, a few years ago due to changes in their personal circumstances, including the death of one of the owners, the remaining owner decided they no longer wanted to live in the house and decided to go into a care home to avoid burdening their children. As you might imagine care home fees are very expensive and unfortunately the Garden House valuation was less than anticipated, the property being the owner’s major asset.

-       Applying for planning permission is a way for them to maximise the value of the house to support any future care needs. The family’s desire is to leave the Garden House with a significant garden and develop a new property respectful of the surroundings rather than maximising value. This application allows them to protect the Garden House as an important Pittville property and avoid its demolition and replacement by overdeveloped flats as has been proposed for this site by developers and planning consultants. Sadly, this has happened all too often in the local area – with examples at Morcote Villa, St Martins Terrace and Lawnswood Court where firms with deep pockets and patience have been able to overcome local opposition.

-       The architect, a near-neighbour of the house, worked with them to deliver this vision whilst reflecting the planning desire for a contemporary rather than pastiche property. The applicants have worked closely with the planning team from a pre-planning assessment in 2024 and have developed multiple iterations in response to feedback to ensure that the house is in keeping with its surroundings and neighbours’ properties. The application is now for a single storey garage, not a double storey.

-       Money and time have been spent working in conjunction with the planners to ensure a high-quality design that is in harmony with the surrounding buildings which are of varied design.

-       In its current format the Garden House plot has a much bigger garden than all surrounding properties and can easily support substantial development. The proposal is for one detached house with garage and a good-sized garden. The main building is in line with the others on the street. It does not reduce available street parking by having only pedestrian access from West Drive and a rear garage with parking spaces.

-       Whilst subjective opinions will always vary on any design, they believe the plan is well developed and sympathetic to the area. The plan increases the housing stock locally without negatively impacting the area whilst allowing the Garden House to continue to as a large family home with generous garden for future generations.

-       In summary this proposal has been continuously developed with the support of the planning team to meet planning requirements, reflect local feedback without over-developing this important plot of land in Pittville. The proposal adds to housing stock within Cheltenham and meets all the planning requirements. The development will support the owner’s future needs whilst leaving a legacy of the house and area that the family loved.

Councillor Garcia Clamp, as Ward Member, addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Attending to support the view of large numbers of residents of Wellington Square and adjoining streets as well as to present the opinion of both Pittville Ward Members.

-       Considering the existing plot of Garden House and the council’s pro-development stance, development of the plot should be permitted. However, they are opposed to the development as currently proposed. The Council unanimously supported Councillor Tooke’s motion for the appropriate use of materials in street repairs to maintain the character and feel of these beautiful, connected, historic Regency squares. Both squares that will be affected by this development are within the conservation area.

-       The objection is based on the principal of protection and retention of the Regency, and unique architectural environment of this area of Pittville. Strongly feel the development on the current design fails to do this. The design is unapologetically contemporary and is jarring in both scale and design language. It will produce a negative impact on the architectural cohesiveness of the area and the more appropriate later additions to it, such as Garden House itself or Rosehill House.

-       The property will be nestled between two more modern builds, evidently much later than Regency, but their design and, more importantly, placement is much more sympathetic to Wellington Square. Both are set back from the main road and shielded by vegetation. The trees proposed in the new development will take decades to grow.

-       Rosehill House is much more pertinent to this case as it sets a clear and sympathetic precedent for development in the conservation area. It is more discrete, and less intrusive in scale and design compared to the proposed development, causing minimum impact on street view. The CGI images provided do not accurately portray the scale as the street is narrower than shown.

-       Therefore, on behalf of a large number of residents and its councillors they ask that the Committee reject the application based on the detrimental impact on the conservation area, and the dangerous precedent that it may set for future developments within it. They would encourage a new proposal which provides a more sympathetic and heritage conscious development and does not break so radically with the architectural environment of the area.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The scheme has gone through consideration of alternative options. Re-orientating the house was discussed with the applicant but they ultimately felt that the scheme would not achieve what they were looking for due to the difficulty of providing off-road parking access from Wellington Square.

-       The first submission did include a two-storey garage, but the current application has revised this to a single-storey garage with a flat roof.

-       The Architects’ Panel and Civic Society are not consulted as statutory bodies. They select what they wish to comment on from the weekly planning list.

-       There is no clear definition of ‘visually attractive’ within the NPPF as it is a subjective matter. From an officer’s perspective they feel the design submitted is acceptable overall and in line with policy.

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

-       Think there are many good reasons to support the scheme as there is enough space for development. However, there are concerns around screening and around the design. Do not think it fits the area and the streetscene, and the design is garish. Whilst this is a subjective matter some Members felt they could not approve the application for these reasons and due to the impact on the Regency squares.

-       Having previously worked with architects it was felt that some of the issues with the design could have been overcome by building the garages in the basement and setting the house back. The impact of the design would then have been minimised. Regret that this applicant has focused on maximising profit over their love for Cheltenham.

-       There was concern that the garage may become an AirBnB in the future, so it was important that it had been confirmed that the application specified a one-storey garage.

-       Another Member felt that it was important to remember that attractiveness is subjective as they felt the design would have looked worse if it had tried to mimic surrounding properties which could have been more jarring to the landscape than a modern frontage. Contrast can provide interest to an area. Although this is within the conservation area, it is important to remember that Cheltenham is not a Regency theme park. It was also noted that there were other modern houses in the area.

-       Concerned over the loss of vegetation given the regrowth time but it was noted that the neighbourhood does have a large number of trees and is located close to Pittville Park.

-       Concern was raised that refusal on the grounds of appearance might not stand up to appeal.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant was advised throughout the process that trying to replicate the Regency building style would not work. They have followed that advice. They reminded Members that the NPPF requires a presumption in favour of development unless a strong reason for refusal is identified in terms of impact on heritage assets or any identified harm would outweigh the benefits. If deciding to reject the application Members should provide specifics on the harm it will cause and consider the heritage impacts separately.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to S106:

For: 5

Against: 2

Abstentions: 2

Voted to permit subject to S106.

Councillor Wheeler rejoined the meeting. Councillor Oliver sent his apologies for the remainder of the meeting.