Agenda item

MP introduced the proposal as a full application for planning permission and conservation area consent.  It is an important site in the conservation area, set amongst G2*-listed Regency terraces.  The proposal sets out to demolish all but one of the existing buildings, and replace them with five dwellings.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Driver.

Public Speaking:

Mr Jacob Pot, neighbour, in objection

Realises the site will inevitably be developed, but it is important the design is right.  Said revisions to the scheme deal with original infringements on the amenity of adjacent properties, but not with the overriding objection to the three-storey element, which is also objected to by English Heritage, the Civic Society, Architects Panel and other local residents.  There is no design argument for the extra storey, and the Conservation Officer excuses it because the three-storey areas are set back.  Considers the only benefit of this is an increased site value.  The 2004 approval included a small second floor, but this was in a pitched roof no higher than the existing roofs, and the original 2004 scheme for a part three-storey, flat-roofed, contemporary development was rejected by officers – a lower, traditional scheme was eventually recommended.  At that time, Jeremy Jefferies, the conservation officer, said three storeys was entirely alien to this mews area, Simon Cairns said that a maximum of two storeys would normally be acceptable here, and Grahame Lewis state that there were fundamental issues in terms of design, layout and height.  An application for a two-storey contemporary coach house, opposite the site, was refused two months ago, based on the conservation officer’s advice that Lansdown Place Lane is characterised by small mews houses and modest buildings which complement the grandeur of the principal terraces.  Cannot understand why the conservation officer is recommending approval of the current scheme, as this is inconsistent with advice of her predecessors, current statutory consultees, and her earlier statements – this proposal is not modest.  Members have seem the mews area from the G2* listed terraces, and noted that all the buildings are two storeys high.  The proposal will rise above the pitched roofs like some contemporary ziggurat, totally out of character, in full view, and changing the setting of the listed terraces.  There are no changes since 2004 in the Council’s statutory obligation to preserve or enhance the character and appearance on the conservation area and settings of listed buildings.  The three-storey element of this proposal will not achieve this, will establish a dangerous precedent, and should be omitted or refused.

Mr David Jones, agent, in support

The proposal is for the redevelopment of a partly fire-damaged site, on which permission was granted in 2004 for eight residential units with workshops.  The demolition proposed now is the same as in 2004, with the retention of the art shop, and five residential units being built on the site.  There have been some objections to the three-storey element, but the 2004 scheme also included a three-storey wing on the eastern boundary – in both cases, it is set back from the street.   Extensive marketing of the site with the approved scheme has attracted no interest from developers, and with the fire-damaged buildings proving impossible to insure, the whole site will inevitably be vacant in the future.  The applicant has worked closely with the conservation officer and planning officers, with the final scheme amended to address objections from neighbours and the recommendation adapted to take these into account.

Member debate:

SW:  looking at the south face of the site, likes the pitched roofs to the right, and didn’t realise there is a pitched roof directly next door to this face as it can’t be seen from ground level.  The same applies to the Studio on west side.  With tall buildings all around, it is difficult to refuse this proposal in terms of height, even though other buildings in the location are two-storey.  Will support the application.

BD:  doesn’t like the three-storey element.  People always look at the front of buildings, but recently went on the new terrace at the ArtGallery and Museum and was shocked by the view of the back of the Brewery development – no-one stopped to think about what it would look like from the back.  People will be looking at the back of this proposal – what will they be seeing?  If the scheme is permitted, there needs to be a condition for gull-proofing the flat roofs, if not already included, written in bold, black ink.  The inner rooms originally appeared to have no escape in case of a fire – has this now been adjusted and agreed with building control?  Wants to see the area developed but if this scheme is permitted, can there be a lot of rules and regulations on parking when it is being built – otherwise it could cause chaos, with people being forced to walk in the middle of the road. 

PJ:  notes the concerns of English Heritage – can the Conservation Officer provide some clarity on the impact of the scheme and why she considers the three-storey element to be OK?

KR, in response:

-          has great respect for her English Heritage colleagues, but they look at applications on paper, not on site, and due to a restructure, the officer commenting on this particular scheme is new to the job.  Considers some of her comments to be valid, but disagrees with others.  For example, the comment that the buildings were originally stabling and coach houses – some clearly were, but some were residential accommodation for grooms and staff, evidenced by 19^th century fireplaces.  There are some issues with the detailed comments from EH;

-          these are not listed buildings or curtilage-listed, so it is impossible to control internal protection of the fabric through legislation.  Agrees with a lot of EH advice about retaining historic fabric – one building is to be retained, another has severe fire damage, and the buildings between – former stables – are now essentially garages and there is not a lot to retain;

-          why is the three-storey element acceptable?  We need to consider the comments on the recent application at Lansdown Place Lane.  This is an interesting area in Cheltenham, essentially a service area, built for horses, carriages, stables, servants; there is a hierarchy in its formality – it is not all brick or all rendered, but still has some architectural status. The proposal re-introduces formal architecture, laying it out in a modern way.  Lansdown Place Lane is much more into the heart of the area, where the formality of the architectural language is lost and was never intended to be read;

-          the three-storey element is proposed where there is currently a two-storey building with a pitched roof.  It is set back and will only be apparent when looking down on it from higher buildings.  There are many examples in town where this arrangement has been allowed, and if the form and mass is acceptable, the architecture should follow on;

-          looking at the original plot form, the relationship of the building to the space around it is as it was historically.

LG:  is worried about the application, and did not feel any happier about it after visiting the site on Planning View.  This is an important conservation area in Cheltenham, and Lansdown Place Lane is an area of traditional, small, two-storey workshops and accommodation mews.  Cannot see the justification for introducing a three-storey building in the same vicinity.  If permitted, will it not set a precedent for the future, for other similar buildings and applications?  We should appreciate what is written in the conservation SPD, and given Cheltenham and its conservation areas the respect they deserve.

BF:  notes Para 1.4 of the officer report – this was traditionally an area of coach houses, stables and mews, but there is not any need for these now.  The backs of many Cheltenham buildings – including the Municipal Offices – are horrible, and this is an improvement on what is currently on the site.  Members are told repeatedly that precedent doesn’t apply in planning.

MP, in response:

-          to BD, there is not a condition to gull-proof the roofs at present, but a standard condition can be attached;

-          regarding escape routes for the inner rooms, has discussed this with the building control manager, and understands that this will need a fire-engineered solution.  This would be set in place after the planning permission, as is normal;

-          regarding parking during construction, there is no construction method statement at present, but this can be included to ensure that construction vehicles are kept off the road.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with additional conditions on the planning permission in respect of gull-proofing the roof and a construction method statement

11 in support

3 in objection

PERMIT