Agenda item

Planning application documents

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:

-       Speaking on behalf of the Civic Society and St. Philip and St. James Residence Association. He is a qualified planner (now retired) and a fellow of the Landscape Institute.

-       He has lived in or near Cheltenham for 45 years, most of the time within a short walking distance of The Park. He walks in it at least once a week and, like many residents, he is grateful for the generous way in which the University has made this beautiful place available for all to enjoy.

-       Council officers have worked hard with the developers to secure significant improvements in the plans for the development of this site since they were first published. So, he hesitated to maintain the initial objections, especially as they welcome the proposed conversion of Broadlands Lodge and Farmery Lodge. However, there are still issues of critical importance and the plans still do not meet the legal duty towards the conservation area.

-       There are three main concerns that should encourage Members to reject these plans - failure to protect and enhance the conservation area, loss of public access, and the precedent that approval of this scheme could set.

-       Any new buildings here should respect the specific guidance in the council's Park character area appraisal. They should also show how they protect and enhance the conservation area as required by law in section 72 of the 1990 Planning Act. The plans submitted do not do that, nor does the officer's report show how this new development will safeguard and enrich the character of the conservation area. The new buildings introduce alien features that respond neither to the fine regency buildings around The Park, nor to the character of the two Victorian buildings that are to be retained as part of the scheme. They are not asking for reproduction Regency or Victorian villas, but for contemporary structures that relate well to them. Flat roofs, projecting first floors and harsh rectangular shapes are not characteristic of this part of town. These highly visible buildings located in one of the most sensitive sites in Cheltenham could have been designed for anywhere. They do not do the job required by law. They do not protect and still less enhance the character of this part of the conservation area.

-       Until the site was sold by the University early last year, the public could walk across it. There was no fence to the road, and many people used the gap between the Farmery and Broadlands as a way into and out of The Park. There is even a traffic island facing the opening that made it safe to cross the road there. What the sale of this site and the scheme have done is to destroy what was a public asset. Surprised that an otherwise very thorough report by the planning officer does not refer to the loss of this de facto access.

-       It is good that the view into The Park from the road will be retained in the scheme and some form of control is planned to keep it clear of obstructions like parked cars and play equipment. Though if this is to work, it must be made legally binding. It would be much better though if the land were to be returned to the University as an addition to the park area, thus restoring the position that existed until last year. Or, failing that, and at a minimum, a right of way should be created so that the public can once again access the centre of The Park this way.

-       Approving the scheme in its present form, the first new residential development within the main area of The Park since it was created in the 1800s, would represent a dangerous precedent. The committee will probably be advised to dismiss this concern because each planning application should be considered on its own merits. This may be technically correct, but consent here will encourage the University, which is facing huge funding pressures, to see if there are other areas on the edge of The Park that they could sell off.

-       The Park is a marvellous asset for the people of Cheltenham. While some development on this site would be acceptable, what is proposed does not fulfil the legal duty to protect and enhance the conservation area. It effectively privatises what was until recently a public asset and it creates a precedent the town may come to regret.

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

-       The committee heard earlier this evening about the need and the importance of large-scale green field developments, the housing that they provide, and the benefits that can come about because of those. At the same time, planning policy still emphasises and places priority on the redevelopment of and reuse of brownfield sites within urban areas. Within that context, the applicant has had positive pre-application advice in respect of these proposals which confirm the site's suitability for redevelopment and the principle of contemporary design. These buildings will stand for the 21st century, not compete with historic neighbours.

-       The pre-application advice particularly welcomed the removal of hazardous asbestos and the delivery of high-quality sustainable homes. In its current form and following extensive work in revising the scheme with the council, the proposal is supported by planning and heritage officers and all other statutory and technical consultees.

-       Alongside energy efficient new build homes, the sympathetic renovation of two other rundown buildings, used as offices for around 20 years, will return them to family homes.

-       Strong ecological benefits are delivered in including 13 new trees which represents an approximately 20% increase and over 100 meters of new hedge. A contribution to off-site ecology will overall provide a robust net gain above policy requirements and the generous open space is retained to preserve views across The Park.

-       Appreciate that opinion on design varies. With reference to the comments from the objector, the applicant is comfortable, and officers may confirm, that the committee’s duties under the relevant act have been carefully considered and respected. The proposal significantly enhances visual amenity compared with the current dilapidated buildings and improves energy efficiency as demonstrated in the submitted materials.

-       The application fully complies with local and national policy and the council's professional officers support the proposal.

-       In summary, this development will deliver safe asbestos removal, site regeneration, additional well-designed and energy efficient family homes as an important contribution to overall supply, enhanced landscaping, ecology gains, protected views of The Park, and a new safer access to the University.

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

-       Both Ward councillors of Park ward thought it was important to bring this application to committee because it has caused a lot of concern among residents and others.

-       The application is situated in a historic and sensitive area of Cheltenham. Plans started for this area in 1833, and the area has gone through many stages of development, even being used briefly as a zoological garden, but most recently as a setting for the University of Gloucestershire. It is an area which is well loved by members of the public, containing several listed and significant buildings.

-       Hopefully, Members will have had an opportunity to read the detailed and well-considered letters of objection from local residents.

-       In recent times, the community has been very grateful because the University has allowed public access to The Park. It has become an important venue for sports such as the junior park run and also generally for mental health, providing a peaceful time spent watching wildlife around the lake.

-       The planning officer has spent a great deal of time negotiating various changes to the application with the developer and several changes have been made for the better. Would like to thank the planning officer for all the time that she has put into this, and the developer for being open to making changes.

-       The application site is situated in a privately owned area. Privately owned now because it was recently sold by the University, within the teardrop shape of the parkland which is so important to the character area of The Park. In the planning document, The Park character area appraisal and management plan of July 2008, says in TP11 that it's important to retain the openness and protect the views and Regency character of the area. Also, that development within the grounds should preserve or enhance this character and not erode any of the open space. Despite the welcome changes made to the original application, concerns still remain regarding some of the design features.

-       Looking at the proposed street scene, the officer has shown the committee, would ask whether this design, particularly of the two new buildings, really preserve or enhance this area. Aware, as mentioned by the developer, that there are a lot of different opinions about what is or is not a good design. One local resident described the new buildings as concrete blocks, whereas another sees them as a modern design in keeping with other developments.

-       Fears do remain around granting this application as many think it will be seen as setting a precedent for future development in the area and there are also concerns about the loss of public access.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       There will be new vehicular access to the University’s car park as part of the scheme. Currently the public can walk into the university car park, but this could lead to pedestrian conflict with cars. If approved there will be no physical way of getting across the application site into the Park campus. There will be estate railings along the frontage and hedgerow with private access for the four new dwellings. It will be quite obvious that there is no public right of way through the site.

-       The proposed University access is to the other side of the Farmery into the University campus. Need to bear in mind that there is no footpath on that side of the road, so people would be crossing the road without a footpath on the other side. There are many other points of access into the University around The Park, so this is not the only access point. The proposed university car park access  point will be approximately 20-30 meters from the one that is being lost.

-       The temporary bin storage marked on the plan is a bin collection point, offset from the road, which will be in use for bin collection day only. Each property will have on-plot bin storage areas. A condition requests details of the bin stores at a later stage. It will be partly screened from view by hedging but will need to be accessible for the bins to be collected.

-       There will be a loss of 5 trees offset by the introduction of 13 new trees.

-       Facing brick is proposed on the ground floor elevations of the new dwellings to match the facing brick of Farmery Lodge, so it will blend in and respond well with the existing red brick buildings on site

-       Presume that the maintenance of the retained open space will be the responsibility of the owners of the four dwellings under a management agreement as the open space and remainder of the site  will be privately owned and managed.

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

-       This is a difficult decision, and the Member has sympathy with the concerns raised by the Ward Member and objector. There is a good argument to be made in terms of heritage, preservation, and not keeping to Regency standards. At the same time there is a very good counterargument to say that this actually does enhance the area as it could be argued that the Farmery building as it currently exists is damaging the conservation area, given the significant alterations that have been made to it.

-       Share concerns about artist impressions and feel it may have caused more concerns in this case than the actual building will do, as the render approach will be in keeping with the brick of the Victorian buildings. One of the beautiful things about Park ward is it is quite idiosyncratic in terms of buildings, with both Regency and Victorian developments, so contemporary buildings that are complimentary could enhance the area.

-       Do not feel that concerns about future development, for example next to the lake, would treat this as a precedent. Especially as this is a rare brownfield site in the area, and in contrast future development in The Park would be encroachment.

-       Access to The Park will still be available to the public, so comfortable that this will not have a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of residents.

-       Understand the fears around the rest of Park Campus. Have applied for this to be local green space within the next Joint Core Strategy and are awaiting a response. However, conversations with the University provides assurance that there is no need for concern about the green space outside of this development. The University seems committed to retaining The Park, and have spoken about introducing a sculpture trail recently. Assured that this does not set a precedent for the rest of the teardrop or within the green area. It would be a travesty to lose that space.

-       The development will not make a significant difference in terms of housing needs, but this is still a consideration for all applications.

-       Firmly of the belief that will not be losing a huge amount in terms of trees.

-       A Member used to live nearby and would regularly use the car park entrance to access The Park, which could feel dangerous.

-       Would like to see more developments introduce green roofs, especially given the preference for flat roofs nowadays.

-       There has been some criticism of these designs being contemporary and not fitting the area, however there are other contemporary properties nearby. Whilst the Member loves Cheltenham’s Regency design, believes it is also important to embrace contemporary design in the right contexts. On this site, the buildings being removed are for the most part not very beautiful. The new designs are not outrageously contemporary, do fit into the site, and are an improvement on the current buildings.

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

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

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