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, and the Ward Member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Lives at 9 Halland Road and as a consequence of correcting errors in the architect's original plans, they are not contesting the rear extension to the adjoining semi at 10 Halland Road.

-       With regard to the roof alterations, they are contesting the proposed roof conversion from hip to gable which alters the appearance of the whole building to a detrimental, lopsided effect. Which will affect them.

-       They are grateful to planners for giving the proposed dormer windows due consideration and accept their recommendations.

-       The planning report itself states and acknowledges that the development will result in an imbalanced building. It will lose symmetry.

-       The report describes the site sensitive position in the conservation area. Halland Road is a historic street in Cheltenham’s central conservation area and falls within the character area. Numbers 9 and 10 are currently identified as important buildings. The pair of semis are over 100 years old and have remained largely unaltered.

-       Both semis together were constructed with a hip roof for considered aesthetic reasons in the 1920s. The elegance and strength of the hip roof comes from all four sides sloping forward towards the walls like a pyramid. The symmetrical shape of a hip roof gives a balanced and cohesive appearance to the whole building and elegant architectural character. For the record, hip roofs are self-racing and more stable in high winds than a gable end. Putting a gable roof on one semi will destroy the beauty of the sloping pyramid form by creating a flat vertical side at one end making the building as a whole lopsided. Not what was intended.

-       The report states the works may not be considered to enhance the character of the conservation area. It describes them as neutral and says the changes will have negligible impact. The objector disputes this. How can a major change resulting in lopsidedness be neutral or negligible? It does not preserve the character of the building as it should.

-       They do not agree that the resulting imbalance to the building is “unlikely to be particularly visible from the street”. This doesn't inspire confidence, it reveals uncertainty. The imbalance certainly will be visible. Indeed, this part of the report directly acknowledges losing symmetry, which is contrary to planning guidelines.

-       According to the report, concerns were raised at the pre-planning stage over the change from hip to gable. These concerns were quashed because the western end of Halland Road is considered to be quite different. The objector strongly contests this subjective view. It is a very short road, so making a distinction between one end and the other is unconvincing. In fact, 9 and 10 Halland Road are part of a set of four similar buildings, all in keeping with each other on the south side of the road, each with matching box bay window frontages and hip roofs. The front street view has a consistent architectural rhythm.

-       Will other similar buildings be permitted to change from hip to gable, as they know this is now being considered by other residents? Will the decision for approval provide leverage for other property developments that will result in incremental harm?

-       The report says the parish council requested a conservation officer should be consulted on these plans for them to go ahead. They are concerned this part of the procedure has not been followed. There is no evidence of it.

-       In summary, the proposals do not meet the requirements of or adhere to the guidelines of the 1990 Conservation Act. Key to the objection is loss of intended symmetry. The development was called into question at pre-application and should have been rejected. Conservation guidelines should be followed, not abandoned or what is the point of them?

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

-       Homeowner of 10 Halland Road. He and his wife have been residents of Cheltenham for many years and both work in the community as a solicitor and a police officer. They have two young children, one at the local primary school and one at the nursery. They are a family, not developers and they intend to live in their home for many years. They purchased the property in 2024 from the previous owners who lived there for about 35 years, and bought it with the intention of modernising it to suit their growing family.

-       Currently, the house has two large bedrooms and two small bedrooms. The proposal is to convert the loft space to two equal bedrooms for their children and to improve the ground floor layout to create a more practical, open plan living space. There is already a modest extension across part of the rear of the house, and the proposal simply extends this across the full width along with a narrow side extension to improve the kitchen space. Overall, the aim is to create a functional family home and not to overdevelop the property.

-       From the outset, they have made every effort to be open and considerate. Nearly a year ago, they spoke to all their surrounding neighbours about their intention to submit a planning application. They always made it very clear and  were happy to discuss the plans and take on feedback as they thought it was important to maintain good relationships with their neighbours.

-       They engaged with an architect and specifically asked for a design that would minimize impact on the adjoining properties. The resulting plans reflect that and the rear extension roof which is pitched in the middle kept the sides either side as low as possible for the neighbours. Before submitting the application, they shared the plans with neighbours and had no objections raised.

-       They sought pre-application advice and then made changes to address any concerns raised by the planning team. Following submission, there was one objection.

-       It is important to understand the context of Halland Road. As you enter the road there are large Edwardian houses, ornate features, front gable projections, sash windows, and originally they would have had iron railings and gates across the front of each garden. However, further along there is a clear change in character. Their home is part of a pair of semi-detached houses built approximately 20 years or so later. These properties are distinct from the earlier Edwardian houses with a render on the top half, less ornate features, no original railings or gates across the front and, being built much later, they also have driveways. These houses are by definition not period homes as they were built after the First World War. While they mimic the earlier houses with the sash windows and gable projection to the front, they are fundamentally different. There are also on the street two pairs of semi- detached 1930’s style houses. Several of these have already been significantly extended and altered. Number 13, opposite number 10, has recently undergone a substantial two-story side extension and a change from hip to gable roof similar to this proposal.

-       Locally, this type of type of alteration is very common. On Old Bath Road, which is just a short distance away, there are a number of similar 1920’s properties. Many have had the hip to gable roof conversion done. There are ten pairs of semis, and five of them have had the conversion done to at least one or both of the houses. These changes do not detract from the character of the houses. They simply make the internal space more usable. Unless you were specifically looking for it, you would be hard pushed to notice the change in roof on these properties.

-       Halland Road is a private dead-end road with no through access for vehicles or people. Only residents and visitors to the houses at the bottom of the street come as far as this property. None of the neighbours who would directly see or be affected by the proposed changes have objected. In fact, they have only received positive feedback in person from them.

-       The sole objection is from the adjoining neighbour. Despite efforts to address their concerns and make multiple amendments to the plans at significant cost, they have been unable to reach an agreement. Despite their efforts, the neighbour objected on the basis of every conceivable point from the size of the extension, position of the extension, windows, roof, solar panels, symmetry, skylights, and drainage. It is now their genuine belief that the concern is not with the specific details of the proposal or with the conservation area. It is with the principle of any building work taking place whatsoever.

-       Whilst he fully respects their right to object, he would ask that the application be considered on its planning merits alone. They have worked very hard to ensure that the proposal is modest in keeping with the area and designed to minimise impact on neighbours. Ultimately, they are simply trying to create a suitable long-term home for their family.

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

-       For complete transparency, wish to declare a coincidental and non-material connection to one of the objectors as they are both voluntary directors of the Daisy Bank Community Interest Company, which is also declared as a non-pecuniary interest on the public register.

-       Wish to thank the applicants for modifications which mean that the rear extension is now uncontroversial. The issue that remains controversial is the attic enlargement which dramatically changes the profile of the top of the house from the angled hip at the side to a much larger square gable end. Different to all the other buildings in this group of 1920s houses, not symmetrical and clearly visible from the street. They are surprised that the architects in their rather skimpy design and access statement offer no defence of this change at all. This is particularly surprising because it is in the Leckhampton zone of the conservation area which is known as an area of special architectural historic interest and has special protection under planning law and guidance.

-       One of the specific issues in the conservation area management plan for Leckhampton is the risk of loss of traditional architectural features on historic buildings. Page 12, figure 1 of that plan clearly marks number 10 Halland Road as what is called a positive building, which the plan explains are those buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of each character area. They often have a collective group value, and are not to be treated in isolation, but for their role as part of the historic street scene. Groups of buildings exactly like those in Halland Road. The plan waxes poetic about the importance of these grand historic houses. It talks about large Victorian and Edwardian villas which have a striking visual impact upon the street scene. Their presence enhances Leckhampton's historic character and creates a sense of atmosphere and architectural splendour.

-       Joint Core Strategy (JCS) policy SD8 talks about the built natural and cultural heritage of Cheltenham which must continue to be valued and promoted for its important contribution to local identity, quality of life and the economy. It specifically says that designated heritage assets and their settings will be conserved and enhanced and explains that designated heritage assets include conservation areas. The Cheltenham Plan 2020 reinforces that JCS policy in numerous places and says that we must conserve and enhance Cheltenham's architectural townscape and landscape heritage within the town's conservation areas. Chapter nine on the historic environment which includes architectural heritage protected by conservation area designations and says these need to be carefully managed, including to protect buildings and the essential character of each street or place. Chapter five and policy D1 on design says that extensions or alterations of existing buildings are required to avoid causing harm to the architectural integrity of the building or group of buildings. Chapter 7 on landscape, which again includes architectural heritage, warns against small incremental alterations and says these need to be carefully managed to protect buildings.

-       In summary, 10 Halland Road is specifically marked as a positive building within the Leckhampton zone of the conservation area which places particular value on these grand Edwardian houses and is itself one of the key heritage assets protected by policy SD8 of the JCS and must not be damaged but must be conserved and enhanced. It is not clear how this change does that. Secondly, positive buildings like this are not to be treated in isolation. The character area management plan is clear that they often have a collective value as a group of buildings, and this is clearly the case in the dramatic sequence of Edwardian villas in Halland Road. And Cheltenham policy D1 is clear that the architectural integrity of buildings should be considered when looking at extensions. Whilst chapter seven is clear that you should be wary of incremental change. Even if that change in itself does not seem to be earth shatteringly important, there does seem to be a real risk of this setting a precedent that could be repeated again and again on dozens more of these Edwardian and Victorian houses, eventually undermining that precious architectural integrity and heritage.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The pair of semi-detached houses on Halland Road are not exactly the same as the properties further down the street. They have similar design features and if you were not looking closely, you would assume they were the same. They are from a slightly later period, and properties further down the road are from a different time period again.

-       Details of the finish material used for the dormer windows will need to be detailed later as part of a condition; however the size, shape and form of the windows will be as indicated in the application. This will enable officers to ensure that materials are appropriate.

-       The property on the street that has already completed a hip to gable alteration is a different style and age of property to the one in the current application. It was formerly a hipped roof, but it has been extended with a two-story extension to the side, so it is not just the roof form that has been changed. The property styles and designs are not comparable to the application.

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

-       Sympathise with the views that have been expressed about these four houses being built as a group. But personally feels that a group of houses can still be coherent even with minor changes to them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent and thinks there is an element of subjectivity here.

-       Does feel that a hipped roof for these very large buildings do make them less imposing. Whereas a gable does the opposite and starts to make the building both imposing and off-balance. However, does not know whether that is a strong enough reason to reject the application.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 7

Against: 1

Abstain: 1

Voted for the officer recommendation to permit.