Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Councillors Oliver and Chelin recused themselves from this item. Councillor Chelin remained at the back of the Chamber until she had spoken in her capacity as Ward Member.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

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

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       They are a chartered town planner speaking on behalf of the Cheltenham Civic Society. Living in Tivoli he knows the site well and supports the principle of it being used for a new residential development. The existing buildings are unattractive, so redevelopment of the site is an opportunity to provide more and better housing, and to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

-       Section 72 the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 creates a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The Civic Society objects to this proposal because it does not do that. On the contrary, it wastes an opportunity to make the area more attractive.

-       The applicant claims that the scheme shows particular sensitivity to the Tivoli character area but in fact the design completely fails to match the vernacular of the area. The area is quite distinctive as the council’s own character assessment explains clearly. Looking at the existing early and mid-Victorian terraces in the area, three features stand out:

o   scale;

o   treatment of the street frontage;

o   style, proportions and materials.

-       In terms of scale, while the surrounding streets in Tivoli are two storey artisan terraces, with pitched roofs. This proposal is for a three-storey development, with a flat roof. Though the CGI images are designed to make the third storey almost disappear.

-       In terms of the street frontage, the existing houses have small front gardens, with railings to the pavement, but generous back gardens, with plenty of amenity space.  None of them have on-site parking or use pavement crossovers or have roof terraces. The proposed houses have on-site parking spaces, which require pavement crossovers, thus privatising some of the on-street parking that others use. The large parking bays create gaping empty spaces opening directly on to the pavement – completely out of character and potentially messy and unsettling. The outdoor amenity space provided is minimal and mean, and in trying to create a bit more, the proposal includes first floor terraces. Not only are they completely out of character, but they will also face directly to the bedrooms of houses across the street, causing intrusive overlooking and noise nuisance that a windowed bedroom would not.

-       As for style, the existing terraces look attractive and coherent, through the consistent use of proportions and materials. This proposal ignores these essential features of the Tivoli character area. Instead of stucco they are using “buff-coloured brick, and vertical stack patterns, with vertical timber cladding”. Instead of painted front doors there will be “natural timber front doors and garage doors”. In addition there are:  “Timber louvre panels and balustrades, along with bronze cladding”. These currently and temporarily fashionable materials will create a busy mish-mash that will be wholly out of place in the terraces of the Tivoli character area.

-       Good contemporary design responds to its context and improves the area. We can see that in the nearby late 20th century development of Tivoli Mews. It respects the local vernacular, sits comfortably alongside existing buildings and has worn well.

-       The Prinbox Works is an interesting site that offers a unique opportunity to improve the coherence of the area, yet the applicant seems determined to create something that sticks out rather than fits in. The design is inappropriate and incongruous. It bears no relationship to Tivoli. It could be absolutely anywhere and so it should be resisted.

-       The multiple local objections show that those who know and care for the area, and who would have to live with the scheme, don’t like it. It will not age or weather well and will never sit comfortably within its older surroundings. In years to come, people walking through Tivoli will look at it and say – “who on earth allowed this?”.

-       We can do better. A contemporary development with a similar number of units, that responds to Tivoli’s vernacular, that fits comfortably into the area, that takes its cues from the surrounding materials, proportions and scale, and that respects Tivoli’s character  - that would truly enhance the Conservation Area. Urge the committee to refuse this application and request a better proposal that adds to the quality of Tivoli.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The officer’s report is very comprehensive and clearly sets out all the issues.

-       Right from the beginning it was clear to the developers that the main considerations for this redevelopment scheme would be:

o   The impact on the conservation area

o   The impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents

o   The tree, and

o   Parking.

-       Cheltenham-based architects Coombes Everitt have quite rightly spent a considerable amount of time designing and refining this scheme and are pleased to see that officers have concluded it would result in a significant betterment to the site and its surroundings and would not preserve but in fact enhance this part of the conservation area.

-       The site is in a tightly knit built-up area with existing residential properties on all 4 sides. Officers have explained in detail in their report how the proposal is compliant with policies with regards neighbouring amenity, especially bearing in mind what’s on site at present and what already has permission.

-       Applicant was keen to ensure retention of the tree, especially as this is the only tree within the public realm in this specific part of Tivoli. The applicant has therefore taken advice from a local arboriculturist, and the council’s trees officer is satisfied with what is proposed.

-       With regards to parking, helpful to explain the engagement the applicant has had with both ward councillors prior to the submission of the application. The first meeting took place in February at the same time the permitted development prior approval application was being determined. The applicant’s wish to redevelop the site was discussed and it was agreed that any scheme would consider a comprehensive strategy for the adjoining streets to try to address ongoing residents’ concerns with indiscriminate parking resulting in narrowing of carriageways. Following this meeting local transport consultants Rappor were engaged by the applicant. At the following meeting in July, Rappor’s recommendation to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to improve access for emergency and refuse vehicles was explained to both ward councillors. This meant implementing double yellow lines along the southern side of Tivoli Walk. A total of 10 on-street spaces would be lost as a result of the proposed development.

-       The application was submitted mid-August but, prior to this, a letter was delivered to over 50 local residents and emailed to both councillors explaining the proposed TRO. However, it soon became clear within the first few weeks of the application that the majority of the residents responding to the council’s consultation were not happy about the loss of on-street parking. Following discussions with planning and highway officers, it was agreed to remove the TRO element from the scheme. By doing this, only 3 on-street spaces are to be lost and all 6 proposed dwellings will have 2 off-road spaces each, as well as secure cycle storage.

-       Unfortunately, the applicant is not in a position to solve the residents’ existing parking frustrations in Tivoli but we do feel the proposal reaches a satisfactory compromise solution whilst enabling the provision of 6 much-need homes in this highly sustainable location.

Councillor Chelin, as Ward Member, addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Called the application into the planning committee owing to the level of disquiet with the plans which centred largely around the design of the buildings and the implications for parking, plus concerns around the impact of the building work itself, as well as links to the drainage infrastructure.  On the latter points, I note that the planning officer’s report is heavily conditioned, which is welcome.

-       The developer reached out early on to ward councillors, to understand the context of the area, and they also wrote to the residents.  Ward councillors also sent a letter to residents to ensure they had seen the plans, and many of them then came to one of the monthly drop-ins, just round the corner from the site. This was the most well attended drop in event they have held.

-       The ward councillors mentioned to the developer the likely issues with parking, and the issue of egress from Sadlers Lane because of cars parking too close to the corners on Tivoli Walk. It was interesting to see the outcomes of the review that was commissioned which included the proposal to introduce extra double yellow lines. This is one of the elements that has been changed, following feedback from objectors, in order to reduce (although clearly not eliminate fully) the concerns about parking. Having followed up with the traffic engineers at Gloucestershire County Council, understand that a permit scheme, which some people are suggesting, will not solve the parking difficulties in Tivoli as the issue is with the number of cars owned by the residents, and, indeed, could potentially make things worse.

-       This still leaves considerable concern about the design of the new buildings which the expert objector has outlined in more detail. Suffice it to say, as with many others in the area, have always felt the Prinbox Works were out of place, if not ugly (whilst appreciating that aesthetics are very personal). It’s true to say that elements of the design have been amended to deal with concerns about privacy and light but the fact remains that many people, including an architect who lives down the street, see it as a missed opportunity to meld a more sympathetic contemporary design into the existing Victorian street scene.

Councillor Chelin left the meeting.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The Architects’ Panel have reviewed the application and provided a comment. They are supportive of the design approach and scheme but have questioned the scale of the development and whether it is a potential overdevelopment of the site.

-       It was originally proposed that the outdoor terraces would serve the 3^rd floor but officers felt that spaces on top of the flat roof did not feel appropriate so they have been removed from the application. They now exist in a different context on the 1^st floor, not fully enclosed but with an open roof and open sides, and are more akin to a balcony. There will be no terraces on the top of the development.

-       Any opening on the external boundaries, including the terraces, are on the road side of the development and will align with the front elevation of terraces around the site, as is the case with the existing building. Whilst there will be an element of overlooking, this will not be different from the current situation.

-       Timber cladding is only proposed in the recessed areas of the undercroft parking and is not on the higher levels. As this parking is open the timber will be visible from the street scene but is not a significant part of the development.

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

-       One of the things a Member has loved about Cheltenham is how the town has looked after its architecture. Appreciate the comments of the Cheltenham Civic Society but things have changed since Tivoli and other areas were built. Back then there were no cars, homes were heated from coals and fires and windows were kept small to prevent heat loss. These properties provide two parking spaces per unit which he believe will improve the parking arrangement and will certainly not make it worse. To provide these spaces it was not possible for the design to match the style of existing buildings. Things have to change. Not possible to have a rubber stamp of older buildings, just need modern buildings to fit in nicely. The artists’ impression shows bigger windows that will let the light in, and the height is similar. Whether the drawing is accurate to show the impact of the third storey is uncertain. Believe the design is cleverly put together and has made reasonable accommodations, it is a sensitive and well-built design that the Member is happy to support.

-       Opposite this space are a modern pastiche of genuine and authentic Victorian houses built two years ago, aware that the Cheltenham Civic Society prefer this approach. However, agree with the Architect’s Panel that a sympathetic modern style is better than pastiche. Matter of opinion but a lot of architects do agree..

-       The site sits within one Member’s county division. There are elements of the application that he is pleased with, particularly that the tree will be more prominent. Hope that more trees will be introduced to Tivoli. The provision of two parking spaces per unit is fairly neutral in terms of parking, which is important in this particular area. Whilst the loss of three parking spaces is not great, it is better than losing ten, especially as permit parking is basically impossible in such a tight area. The balcony provision on the first floor and facing the roads is no different than bedroom windows. In balance this is not a bad design given the space limitations and is certainly an improvement on the Prinbox Works themselves.

-       Slightly surprised to hear criticism of the scale of the proposal as it feels appropriate. Design is deeply subjective. One of the primary issues is solving the local parking issue. This has a significant impact on the design unfortunately, given the situation believe this is the best compromise so will be voting in favour.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to a S106 obligation.

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the officer recommendation to permit the application subject to a S106 obligation.