Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/00777/FUL & CAC,  13/00827/OUT & CAC
Location:	Former Odeon Cinema/Haines & Strange
Proposal:	13/00777/FUL & CAC: Construction of 6 no. townhouses, 8 no. apartments, 6 no. retail units, new vehicular access and associated works; following demolition of the existing building   13/00827/OUT & CAC:  Regeneration incorporating construction of 33 no. houses, 48 no. apartments, 6 no. retail units, new vehicular access and associated works; following demolition of all of the existing buildings
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:			Permit – delegate authority back to Officers to resolve outstanding issues before issuing permissions/consents
Committee Decision:			Permit – delegate authority back to Officers to resolve outstanding issues before issuing permissions/consents
Letters of Rep:		11 (including 2 petitions	Update Report:	Officer comments, conservation comments, conclusion and recommendation (circulated to Members on 17/07 by email)

 

Public Speaking:

 

Mr Robert Chitham, applicant’s heritage adviser, in support:

Introduced himself as the architect who had been invited to review the details of the scheme.  Said the neo-classical design is of high quality and well suited to its surroundings.  Noted that this is a Taskforce site, brownfield and derelict, and using it for new homes will help with the town’s housing supply.  Considered there to be two crucial issues, the first being the cinema:  its size and form make it difficult to adapt, and despite six years’ marketing, no-one has come forward to take it on, deterred by the massive cost of repairing and adapting it.  Said it is not a major work by its architect, and is not included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historical interest.  Said the conservation area could be enhanced by buildings such as this, but considered it out of scale and architecturally discordant with the area, and the opportunity to replace it with something more appropriate should not be missed. 

 

The second issue is the design, which had been examined thoroughly by officers and amended accordingly, including a reduction in the mass of the town houses and realigning them to increase landscaping opportunities in the site.  Said other details need large-scale drawings and are controlled by condition.  Considered the principles of the proposal had not been fully recognised, and there was some confusion over mews-type houses and villas and the need for these to be set in a landscaped context – this was common in London developments of the period but not in Cheltenham.   Said the design critique included generalities which had been taken as rules, such as duality, a style characterised by two mirrored halves, which was common in Cheltenham but could be mitigated to some extent – and in any case was not an issue in a terraced design which was generally viewed obliquely, along the street. 

 

Regarding shop fronts projecting over the plane of buildings above, said some shops in Cheltenham do this slightly, others do not – there is no rule.  Said the proportions of the terrace had been described as atypical and inelegant, with the suggestion that the design is unworthy, being neither pastiche nor replication.  Agreed the scheme is not a facsimile of 19^th-century work but a reflection of early 19^th-century design which will fit well in its surroundings in the conservation area.  John Wood in Bath had shown how the design of town houses and street architecture could create the illusion of a palace, but this was a conceit.  This proposal reflects the tradition without slavishly copying any example of the genre.

 

Said the scheme would be a great benefit to the conservation area and the town, and commended it to the Committee.

 

Cllr Jordan, ward councillor, in support

Told Members he had wandered round his ward a year ago, delivering Taskforce leaflets to encourage support of development in this area.  It was agreed that the Albion Street-Gloucester Place-Winchcombe Street-Fairview Road block looked a bit sad, and residents and councillors were delighted that a scheme has come forward to give a big boost to the area.  Was aware that it is often suggested that the planning process blocks economic growth, but said this is nonsense – this proposal has been processed in eight weeks rather than the usual 13, and is a great credit to officers and the council.  Said if it is now refused to conserve the Odeon, the council would be a laughing stock – he walks past the Odeon twice a day and considers it an ugly building from most angles.  If a good use for it could be found, maybe it could stay, but after seven years’ on the market, there were no buyers and no offers, and he therefore had no problem with it its demolition to allow development of the area to happen. 

 

Admitted concern over the multiple applications, potential for piecemeal development, and consequences if any part of the proposals didn’t materialise, but was pleased officers were taking action on this in the recommendations.  Noted that previous schemes had included affordable housing and street scene improvements in Gloucester Place, but accepted that this may not be viable with the current scheme and considered it more important to have something happening on the site.  Told Members that shop-owners were concerned about what was likely to happen next and had been contacting councillors for information – it is important that they can carry on their business in the area as the plan develops. 

 

Said the overall view of the proposal is supportive, and there has not been one objection to the scheme from local residents.  Their attitude is more one of “Get on with it!” – the site has been derelict for years and there are concerns about break-ins and other anti-social behaviour in the area.  Summarised by saying that in his personal view the Planning Committee should take all considerations into account and give the scheme its support, so that the developers can just get on with it.

 

Cllr Sudbury, in objection

Realised she was probably a representative of the Flat Earth Society and spoke more in hope than expectation, but wanted to make a few key points.  The first of these was the principle of the demolition of the Odeon and Cheltenham’s Index of Buildings of Special Interest - her concern was the Odeon itself and how we treat our old buildings.  Said Cheltenham is lucky to have so many listed buildings and conservation areas, and that the council shouldn’t just be concerned with protecting listed buildings in the upmarket part of town.  Said the Odeon, the Axiom, Christ Church Annexe, the Coliseum are all part of the real history of the town, and if we have a list of locally important buildings but don’t try to save them, we will end up with a ‘disneyfied’ version of Cheltenham.  Welcomed the attempt to bring this area back to life, having been concerned about it for years and visited it frequently, but thought traders were being dealt a hard hand.  Said the Odeon is a nice, old building, and asked Members to consider the logic being put forward to say the building should be demolished – what was there to say that the Queen’s Hotel, stripped of its assets and allowed to become an eyesore, could therefore not be demolished and replaced by pastiche in the future?

 

Was also very concerned about the lack of affordable housing in the scheme.  Said there was currently much debate in Cheltenham about building on the greenbelt and fields, and the understanding is always that we should develop brownfield sites first, and yet here we are being told that these aren’t viable to develop if they have to include the required level of affordable housing.  Was surprised any developer would pay the purchase price for the land at 50% above its value, when the policy on affordable housing is transparent and developers know that any scheme should include 40% affordable housing. 

 

Recognised this is a difficult site, but supported the Conservation Officer’s comments - does not like the façade approach.  Made the point that if Cheltenham is to have more than a thin veneer of culture, it should be recognised that the town is crying out for a music venue of this size.  Has to go to Gloucester or London to see bands which would play locally if there was a suitable, decent-sized auditorium – the Odeon would be perfect. 

 

Thanked Members for listening – but didn’t hold out much hope.

 

 

Member debate:

RG:  said SJ had expressed concern about the separate applications and the possibility of one scheme being implemented without the other.  Compared these applications to those at Travis Perkins and Kier Construction, and said there should be clarity.  Did not share KS’s attachment to the Odeon, saying nothing has be done with it for seven years, but asked if we can keep some part of it, such as the carved ladies on the front, or else have a prominent stone about the history of the site somewhere nearby, as had been done at Gloucester Road School.

 

WH, in response:

-          said the redevelopment had been submitted as two separate applications.  During pre-app advice, the applicants were advised to come in with a comprehensive scheme, but because of matters to do with ownership, they had decided to submit two applications.  Said the site can be considered as a whole in terms of the level of obligations required by the council, but these are stand-alone applications, one does not facilitate the other, and they are not tied like the Travis Perkins/Bonella Works applications at June committee.

 

PT:  had listened to the speakers and had great sympathy with KS’s view of the Odeon.  Wanted to say at this stage that this is such a big, dominant, prestigious area of the town that we must be very, very careful and very sure about what it going to happen before putting hands up to say do it or don’t do it.  Remembers a certain site – though no current Planning Committee Members were involved in the decision – where Cheltenham agreed to knock down its beautiful old grammar school in order to build a row of shops and later to develop the prestigious Brewery.  Says the shops have been an eyesore ever since, and that decision by CBC was one of the reasons why she became a councillor.  Said this scheme is a similar challenge, and care should be taken not to build something which people will learn to hate.

 

MS:  agrees with that statement, but is more optimistic.  Having walked round the site, looked at the plans and read the report, thinks that the proposal will be beneficial to Cheltenham.  Was disappointed by the thread of information in the officer report, suggesting officers don’t really want the semi-pastiche design and would have preferred something more modern.  Thought that the reason why there is so much support for the scheme from the town is because it reflects Cheltenham in architecture and style of building.  As for the Odeon, said it is a shame no use has been found for it, but its development would be a huge civil engineering project and not viable.  As SJ had said, let’s get on with it – fully supports the scheme.

 

BF:  regarding the Odeon, said there is no demand for a cinema like this.  If it was like the Duke of York’s Picture House in Brighton there may be, but the Odeon was never that – it was a large cinema which later became a multi-screen cinema, when its insides were pulled to bits.  As for the frontage and the two ladies, said these were not original – when he was a lad the front was adorned with a chevron and a Gaumont sign.  Said there was no demand for the Odeon to be restored as a cinema – people watch films differently now, on DVD and TV.  Had seen the Beatles at the Odeon, after queuing up for tickets from five in the morning, and other stars such as Liberace had appeared there, but all that kind of entertainment has gone now.  The Council needs to look to the future – the town doesn’t need this cinema, but it does need housing.

 

As for the design, thinks that it is fine.  Realises it is a question of personal taste, but does not like the Millennium Restaurant or St George’s Gate, and thinks modern developments such as these aren’t right in a regency area.  Said that even the back of Debenham’s has a regency feel with its pillar design, and there is nothing wrong with the regency design of this proposal. 

 

Regarding affordable housing, said this had been considered by the District Valuer, and was the price to be paid for developing brownfield sites.  Reminded Members about Village Road in Arle which has been empty for ten years – with a listed building on site, no applications have come forward as it is not viable to include affordable housing on a site such as this. 

 

Thought that the Odeon could not be compared with the old grammar school – remembers both buildings, and unlike the grammar school, the Odeon is not a great piece of architecture.  Like the Coliseum, said previous owners have ripped its guts out, and it will never be viable as a cinema again.  Reminded Members of the planning history of the site – an application to develop the Haines & Strange site was permitted but nothing happened, and there had been plans to turn the Odeon into a nightclub and restaurants.  If given the choice of 161 flats and a nightclub with two restaurants, or the scheme before Members tonight, said there was no contest.

 

Said these two proposals work – schemes that link together two empty sites – and are a very good offer. Reminded Members that they will soon be forced to consider applications to build on greenfield sites, and they will look foolish if they turn down this opportunity to build on a brownfield site – every plan makes a difference for the overall housing requirements.  Said it would be madness if Members turn it down.

 

LG:  said the advice is that every planning application has to be considered on its own merits and that there are things about this site that are particularly concerning – hopes the Conservation and Heritage Officer can talk about these.  Referred to her comments on Page 18 of the blue update, that ‘it is unfortunate that this application has been somewhat rushed and the applicants failed to engage in a meaningful pre-application process.  From my experience the pre-application process can be so helpful in developing a quality scheme’.  Is disturbed by this, and mindful that many people thought this site was a missed opportunity when they voted for North Place.  Is desperate to get central Cheltenham right, and although not saying that these proposals are rubbish – there are many good aspects – is troubled by that comment from the Conservation and Heritage Officer.  Is also concerned that the applicant’s heritage adviser says the direct opposite of our own – said this needs to be crystal clear. 

 

If there is any opportunity for further discussion, suggested the ward councillor should be involved as it is clear from SJ’s and KS’s comments that they could add to a round-table discussion. 

 

Regarding the Odeon, said the Conservation Officer refers to it being part-demolished, and hoped that the most architectural part of it can be saved and something done with it along the lines suggested.  Was very interested in the points raised by the Conservation Officer regarding the Haines and Strange proposal, and wondered whether the decision should be deferred to allow more thorough pre-app discussion.

 

BD:   suggested that any Members couldn’t vote to save the Odeon because there is nothing there to save.  Is usually the first to support the protection and conservation of heritage buildings, but as a result of recent development, there is nothing of it left. 

 

JW:  following the North Place/Portland Street approval with 40% affordable housing, was appalled at the lack of affordable housing in this application.  Said the District Valuer’s appraisal was based on this particular developer’s plans, not the site itself – maybe another developer could work up a scheme which includes affordable housing.  Agreed that the site is awful, but asked why affordable housing hadn’t been taken into account, and why viability was not looked into more fully.  This is a town centre site, ideal for economic development, and a prime site to make the target of 40%.  To allow the development to go ahead without affordable housing will mean a higher level will need to be provided elsewhere.  Said this is a missed opportunity.

 

AM:  has sympathy with JW’s comments, and has argued for affordable housing in the past, but said the authority is forced to make compromises at times.  Reminded Members that the committee has passed other schemes which included affordable housing but they never got built.  Members had to weigh up the situation – this is a strategic site which links the architecturally incoherent Winchcombe Street, Gloucester Place and Albion Street.  Its development will be a huge benefit to the town, and will at least provide some housing.  Said the idea had been busked around a great deal, but if the only way to get the site developed is to have no affordable housing,  was prepared to bite the bullet, but wanted reassurance that this is the only way, not like Travis Perkins.  Said Members could take comfort that the District Valuer’s figures are valid. 

 

On a simple, crude basis, said he likes the look of the development, and believes that when it is implemented, it will enhance and lift this part of town.  Does not agree the Odeon is a treasure, considering it the thin end of the wedge.  Said Cheltenham has more listed buildings than any town, but the Odeon is not one of them – considers it a massive, ugly carbuncle, saying that its demolition alone will improve this area of town.  Reminded those wishing to save it that no-one can find a use or the money to develop it, and said they should wake up and smell the coffee – the building is a blight.

 

Said this proposal ticks all the boxes and is a key Taskforce site.  This should be weighed up against the disadvantages – no affordable housing, access, the design in the centre of the block.  It is a big site, and he has never seen one where everyone agrees – there are always different views, and is not surprised that there is no uniformity of opinion here.  But listing the positives and negatives, finds there are more positives, and will therefore support the proposal.

 

SW:  said AM has made many of his points and he reluctantly agrees, though cannot help but feel that the Council is being blackmailed into having to accept.  Can’t understand the objection to the design of the scheme and concerns that it is pastiche – said a development either looks nice or it doesn’t, and considers that this one does look nice.  Was, however, concerned about the density and had spoken to the Officer before the meeting to get a more accurate figure – which is in excess of 100 dwellings per hectare, in his opinion too high for any development, even a sustainable town centre site such as this.  Realises, however, Members are not allowed to object on these grounds yet.

 

KR, in response:

-          regarding the Odeon, said it is on the Index of Buildings of Local Interest although not statutorily listed by the government, and confirmed that the council has no control over the interior – what the previous owners have done is not illegal.  However, the local index was created by CBC and instigated by Members who drove forward its preparation at a cost of some £50k in officer and consultant time.  Reading from the criteria for selection of buildings for the list:  that a building is the work of an architect or designer of note – the architect of the Odeon was renowned at the time for designing cinemas;  that the building is a good example of an educational, religious or community building which retains some original details and materials – the Odeon’s front elevation is original, albeit the Gaumont sign has been lost; that the building contributes to the area and is part of the social development of the town – the Odeon fulfils these criteria.  Said it is right that the Odeon is included on the list;

-          read from policy BE11 – ‘the demolition of, or harmful alteration of a building on the Index of Buildings of Local Importance will be resisted’.  Said it is clear that nobody wants to use the building as a cinema, but was concerned that the historic appraisal has flaws, has not been done independently, and includes no analysis of repair costs;

-          said there are two elements to consider:  is the building worth saving, and if not, are the applicants complying with policy? Does not think they are.  Realises there is a problem of what to do with a building of such large volume which  is not now wanted as a cinema or night club, but hoped there was a possibility of retaining the front element – said the applicants have not come back with analysed reasons as to why this can’t be done.  All they have said is that it would be too expensive, but have not provided any costings to confirm this statement.

-          if it is considered right to demolish the building, asked how this fitted in with policy? 

-          agrees that the site is in need of development, and welcomes the fact that a scheme has come forward and that the intention is to link the two sites, but would be more supportive of the proposal if this didn’t mean the loss of the Odeon;

-          regarding her comment in the blue update about consideration of the Haines & Strange application being rushed, said she had spent all day Wednesday considering revised drawings which had been submitted the day before.  Said the refuse question, problems with architectural design, lack of comments from English Heritage, and lack of compliance with local policy were all outstanding issues, and compared this scheme with the North Place/Portland Street development, where similar issues were worked through.  Said this proposal has not benefitted from similar consideration due to time constraints;

-          commenting on the design, said English Heritage is very clear that if the form, mass, footprint, lay-out, relationship to surroundings and urban grain is right, the architecture is secondary, but if the intention is to create a historic reproduction, it must be authentic;

-          regarding this, said there is a terrace of three listed buildings in Winchcombe Street which demonstrate some classic elements of Cheltenham architecture, such as raised ground floors and projecting ground floor shop fronts, but the proposed terrace does not include these simple things.  KR has been told that they cannot be lined up with the existing buildings without scuppering the whole scheme, and there is not the benefit of time to explore this;

-          on the question of duality, says Mr Chitham is right in his comments, and it would be better to have an odd number of houses in the terrace.  Here, however, there is precise duality, and the suggestion that this can be countered by greater emphasis on the ‘bookend’ units is weak due to their slender proportions.  Said this could have been negotiated to make it a more robust proposal;

-          said that several of Mr Chitham’s suggestions have not been followed through – on chimney stacks, for example – and feels very strongly that more could have been achieved had there been more time for negotiation.

 

WH, in response:

-          regarding the policy on the Index of Buildings of Local Interest, said this is a question officers have to ask themselves when balancing a lot of issues – a heritage building, a town centre site, looking at individual local plan policies, compliance with the NPPF and so on.  In line with Section 12 of the NPPF, officers had considered whether the applicant had submitted an acceptable level of information regarding the heritage asset – this must be used to balance any argument about compliance with local policy;

-          agreed that it was very disappointing that officers had been unable to secure any affordable housing on the site, but said that this was a recognisable approach in line with the NPPF. Said the DVS had scrutinised the reports to confirm viability – this decision was not simply undertaken by officers – and where it was shown that a scheme would be unviable if a compliant level of affordable housing was sought, it should not be over-burdened by this requirement.  If the compliant level was sought, the site would not be viable, and the scheme could not be delivered;

-          the question is whether the benefits of redeveloping the site outweigh the negatives – the loss of the Odeon, the pastiche design approach, zero affordable housing.  Said this is the decision Members must take;

-          regarding density, said this is not something we should dwell on as there are no policy prescriptive numbers to adhere to.  The question to ask is, ‘does the scheme work in context?’ taking into account whether it is situated in the town centre or on the town edge.  Reminded Members that the previous permission had been for 161 units, and this was for just 81.  Said officers would expect to see a dense scheme in a town centre site.

 

WT, in response:

-          said density shouldn’t be used to deter the scheme.  The proposal is significantly less dense than the previous approved scheme, and repeated WH’s comment that the most important question is whether the scheme works in its context.  Admitted that there are some compromises, but said these are marginal issues, and officers are happy that the elements of the scheme broadly work.  Said again that the density on the Haines and Strange site was half that approved previously.

 

SW:  said officers were advising that Members shouldn’t be concerned with density, but believed that they should be – high levels of density lead to trouble, according to experts in the field.  Said if this wasn’t monitored, there could be problems with anti-social behaviour in the future.  Would like to see the density figures.

 

WH, in response:

-          said there are no longer any prescriptive numbers to go by, but said again that the previous scheme for 161 dwellings had been approved, and at 81, this proposal was a substantial reduction on that.  Would expect to see a dense development in a town centre site.

 

BD:  regarding the Odeon, asked KR if the local plan policy applied to the whole building and whether it still holds when there is nothing behind the front.

 

BF:  on the matter of pastiche, referred to the Queen’s Hotel, saying there had originally been a single-storey building alongside it, which had been replaced with houses designed to ‘finish off’ Imperial Gardens, but described by English Heritage as ‘architectural wallpaper’ and pastiche.  Said in most people’s eyes, the new buildings complement the whole of Imperial Square, despite bearing no relation to what was there before.

 

PT:  said density is what enables people to have a good quality of life or not, and as there are quality of life requirements in our local policies, these should be fulfilled.  Asked if this is still considered to be a high density development, despite being in the middle of town.  Also asked for clarification of the building line on the Winchcombe Street side – is this where the Odeon is currently or further forward, taking up more of the pavement?  In view of KR’s comments, asked whether Members should be deferring their decision.  They have been told that the scheme was being processed as quickly as possible, and KR was right to be concerned that she has not been able to use her pre-planning skills on the development.  Thought the scheme should be looked at more closely for the sake of Cheltenham, and was prepared to propose deferral if other Members were in agreement.

 

LG:  was grateful to KR for her explanation.  Regarding the Haines and Strange application, the extant planning permission, and late arrival of drawings, asked if it was possible to give an assessment of whether the new drawings make the extant permission better or worse.

 

RG:  also welcomed KR’s comments, and the historical note and recognition of the history of the Odeon, but referred to Policy BE11’s requirement that demolition of buildings on the Local Index should be resisted.  Said this had already been done, for several years – there have been various applications to preserve the Odeon in another use – and now we are at the stage where it is a key feature in the development of the wider site.  Said land assembly is not an easy process, and CBC has resisted demolition of the Odeon for seven years – so it was wrong to say that BE11 is simply being thrown out here.  However, asked what would happen if Members voted for the scheme and English Heritage comments subsequently say it should be saved.  Asked if KR could sit down and talk to the architect, and ask for various tweakings of elements she was particularly concerned about.

 

PH:  had looked closely at the western elevation from Winchcombe Street and carefully read the report and the Crime Prevention Officer’s comments on this. Noted that Page 8 of the blue update suggested access to the flats would be better from the street than from the rear courtyard, activating the street and introducing more passive surveillance.  Thought this a very relevant point and noted the gated entry to the east side of the site.  Asked if the Crime Prevention officer is happy with this, and whether more of his concerns could be met by condition. 

 

WH, in response:

-          said this is why officers have recommended that Members support the application but delegate authority to issue the planning permissions back to officers.  Said PH’s point is one of the suggestions brought up at meetings, and confirmed that there have been a lot of meetings with the applicants and a lot of changes already made;

-          said that deferral won’t achieve anything, and hopes that the recommendation gives confidence to Members – proposed design amendments will be put to the applicants who will make the necessary changes and proceed on that basis.  Said this process could continue while waiting for the statutory 21 days for English Heritage comments to end;

-          confirmed that if English Heritage object to the scheme, it will be brought back to Members;

-          regarding density, had worked this out as approximately 108 dwellings per hectare.   Was not sure how much this means to people, but reminded them again that the previous scheme on the site was for 161 dwellings and this scheme is far reduced;

-          confirmed to PT that the building line of the new development on Winchcombe Street would be the same as that of the Odeon;

-          repeated that she could not see what deferral would achieve.  Confirmed that Officers would sort out the design tweaks and refuse issues, and await English Heritage comments, and Members were being asked to delegate back to officers on this basis.

 

KR, in response:

-          to BD’s question about whether listing on the local index refers to the whole building, said it refers to ‘buildings and structures’, and despite the fact that the interior has been lost, it is still relevant for the Odeon to be included on the list, and BE11 is still a valid policy;

-          to BF’s comments on the Queen’s Hotel, said this was not relevant here – the Queen’s is a Grade II* listed building.  Confirmed that the former stable yard has been replaced by houses, which are in many respects pastiche.  However, said the reason why they are pastiche relates to the public open space, and the difference between that and the scheme being considered today is that there is no public open space or gardens in Winchcombe Street/Haines and Strange site – which makes the proposal less authentic than that in Imperial Square;

-          to RG’s question about the latest drawings for the Haines and Strange site, said she considers these better than the previous scheme.  Recognised the benefit of the site as a whole being developed, but was primarily concerned about whether the Odeon should be developed.  Said the scheme should be done the right way;

-          to RG’s suggestion of a commemorative stone or plinth, marking the spot where the Odeon once stood, if permission is granted, agreed that this is a good idea but didn’t know where it could be placed.

 

CC: reminded Members that the debate was taking the two sites as a whole, thought the two applications would be voted on separately.  Invited BD to comment on the Haines and Strange application.

 

CL:  reiterated this for clarity – the two applications were being debated together as a whole, but would be voted on separately.

 

BD:  apologised for misunderstanding.  Was concerned about affordable housing, although noted this had already been discussed.  Seriously hoped every building would have a gull-proof roof.  Noted on the blue update that refuse arrangements were still to be sorted – hoped this would be clarified as there could be a problem when built if good arrangements were not made.  Commented that the inner courtyard area was very tarmac- and car-dominated, and said plenty of landscaping would be needed – if the area was to be densely populated, there should at least be a little greenery around.  Was concerned about existing residents’ parking permits and the impact that parking requirements of new residents would have.

 

PT:  was reminded by BD’s comment that the surfaces had not been explored.  Said this is a big site, with a lot of concrete and tarmac, and suggested permeable surfaces should be used.  Had also noticed – though realised that this is not a planning issue – that the layouts of some of the apartments have bedrooms which fail to meet the minimum floor area of seven square metres.  This brought her back to the quality of life consideration, and said that we should be able to think about these things in planning.

 

RG:  noted the conclusion on Page 14 of the blue update – points 2.1 to 2.6 – and considers these very well written.  Commented on the ‘limited ambition’ reference in 2.3, saying that he thought the scheme would work and the redevelopment of the site would be a success – though personally would like to see something more contemporary in design, like Century Court.  Had to make an on-balance decision – agrees that there are some aspects to be regretted, but said it would take a year to get it all right.  Said Members should support the proposal.

 

MP, in response:

-          regarding parking permits, said it was quite simple – residents will be allowed to apply for permits, but there is no guarantee that they will get them;

-          reminded Members that this is a town centre site, very sustainable, and car ownership is low;

-          considers the parking arrangements for the scheme to be good.

 

WH, in response:

-          to BD, confirmed that there would be a standard condition to ensure that the roofs are gull-proof;

-          said that refuse arrangements would be finalised and secured by condition by officers;

-          said that landscaping of the Haines and Strange site is a reserved matter, and an indicative landscaping scheme would be the next stage;

-          to PT’s request for permeable surfacing, said this also comes under landscaping and is a reserved matter, to be dealt with at a later.  Said permeable surfaces would be promoted in discussions with the applicants;

-          regarding the small bedrooms, said the drawings have been revised, but PT is right, there are currently no set standards on room size.

 

WT, in response:

-          said the plans have been revised and the small bedrooms are now called ‘studies’ ;

-          explained to Members that the Public Housing Sector and Policy Section is responsible for drawing up guidelines on room size, and is hoping to get a recommendation to Cabinet in Autumn to look at adopting an informal policy.  Said that because of the situation with the JCS and Cheltenham Plan, a formal policy could not be instigated, but assured Members that informal policies can have teeth;

-          said that although there will be policies on space standards in the JCS and Cheltenham Plan, these are unlikely to get down to actual bedroom size and will be more concerned with the overall space of a dwelling.

 

WH, in response:

-          following an earlier statement about English Heritage’s response, said this could be to support, no comment, or to object.  If they object, she had said earlier in the debate that the application would be brought back to committee, but now told Members that a better solution would be for officers to discuss matters with the Chair and Vice-Chair, as long as Members are happy with this.

 

RG:  presumed that, if English Heritage has concerns, officers will try to negotiate these away.

 

CC:  asked PT if she still wanted to move to defer.

 

PT:  remained concerned that there was no report from English Heritage yet, and KR’s comments that further information on policy is needed.  Agreed that the application appears to have been rushed through for some reason, and while it is laudable to take on such a huge site, said again that Members and the authority need to be very, very careful in their consideration of the proposal.

 

MJC, in response:

-          re-emphasised that this is the reason for the recommendation, and it makes allowances for Members’ concerns.  Could see that Members have some causes for concern, but said that these are not enough to defer the decision.  These are relatively minor matters – refuse and minor design issues – and if the whole scheme was to be brought back again in one month’s time, could not see that the debate would be very different.  Said if Members go with the recommendation, they would buy officers time to tweak the details of the scheme – they do not need to wait another month for this.

 

KR, in response:

-          would like to see information about costings to prove that the Odeon can’t be kept in some part – has just been told that it would be too expensive.  Regarding other issues, colleagues say these can be done through the usual process.

 

MS:  was happy for officers to negotiate as long as the proposal doesn’t end up Century Court style.

 

CC:  asked if Members would like to vote on PT’s move to defer.

 

CL, in response:

-          before voting, went through the Committee’s voting protocol with Members:  explained that if a recommendation to permit is lost, the proposal is refused; if a recommendation to refuse is lost, then the proposal is permitted; if a move to defer is lost, the protocol is silent on that, so in that case CL’s advice is that another move needs to be made, to vote on the officer recommendation, otherwise a limbo situation arises.

 

PT:  asked why, if her move to defer is lost, Members can’t simply vote on the officer recommendation as stated.

 

CL, in response:

-          said if PT’s move is lost, a Member can move to vote on the officer recommendation thereafter.  Asked if PT wanted to move to defer on both sites.

 

PT:  confirmed that she was concerned with the Former Odeon site, not the Haines and Strange site. 

 

CC:  confirmed that Members would vote first on PT’s move to defer, pending further work on viability and awaiting English Heritage’s report.

 

Vote taken on PT’s move to defer a decision on 3/00777/FUL & CAC, Former Odeon Cinema

2 in support

8 in objection

1 abstention

MOVE TO DEFER LOST

 

BD:  moved that votes be taken on the officer recommendations.

 

Vote taken on officer recommendation on 13/00777/FUL & CAC, Former Odeon Cinema

10 in support

2 in objection

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION APPROVED

 

Vote taken on officer recommendation on 13/00827/OUT & CAC, Haines & Strange

11 in support

1 in objection

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION APPROVED