Agenda item

 

 

Application Number:			13/02091/FUL
Location:	28 Victoria Terrace, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		12	Update Report:		None

 

MP described the application as above, adding that revised plans have been submitted to address the concerns of the Architects’ Panel and Conservation Officer.  Two additional off-street parking spaces have been provided.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillor Jordan.

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Paula Loughlin, local resident, in objection

The design of the proposed dwellings is out-of-keeping with the character of Victoria Terrace, which is traditional Victorian in style.  The proposed flat roof and fibre glass roofing materials are contrary to the Local Plan, para 5.36 – and this, together with the three-storey construction, represents over development and will make the new houses stick out like a sore thumb.  Over-shadowing, over-looking and loss of privacy are also concerns for local resident.  Parking is another issue – it is already difficult in Victoria Terrace and these additional dwellings will add to the problem.  With three storeys and four bedrooms, each house is likely to bring two extra cars, added to which the two-entrance arrangement to the houses will take away two existing on-street parking spaces.  Existing difficulties with manoeuvring in Victoria Terrace will become even worse with the two new properties.  Additional considerations are the construction method statement – the time restrictions for development, the unadopted highway and the effect on the road surface.  If permission is granted, residents request a condition to ensure that the flat roofs are not used as terraces or roof gardens, which could cause noise and disturbance to neighbours.

 

Councillor Jordan, in objection

Has no objection to the demolition of the bungalow but it concerned about what is proposed in its place.  This site is at the end of the terrace, and although the existing dwelling may have less style than those around it, what is proposed is potential over-development – three storeys high, and completely different from the existing dwellings in style and design.  The issue of parking and transport is important – it is already a problem in Victoria Terrace, and although the additional parking spaces for the proposed dwellings is good, there is still the problem of getting in and out.  As with Brighton Road, additional space for turning would be helpful.  Regarding the highway, a large pothole appeared in the road last June – this is an unadopted road and the issues here are similar to what has been discussed at GCHQ Oakley, only smaller in scale. Asks if anything can be done through a construction method statement - construction vehicles could well damage the road, and would the developer be liable for this?  These are the two big concerns of residents – the scale of the development and parking/highway issues.

 

 

Member debate:

SW:  doesn’t like the third storey.  Councillor Jordan has made a good point about the state of the road and large potholes;commercial vehicles up and down during construction could cause further damage.  S106 money should go towards to road maintenance in the event of any further damage.

 

RW:  this is an appalling design, which is a pity as the principle of building a pair of semi-detached houses here is OK, but not in a style so inappropriate to the rest of the street.  The three-storey flat-roofed houses look like Lego.  The proposal didn’t need to be done like this.  Will move to refuse.

 

BF:  doesn’t like the design.  The construction is not in line – would have preferred to see no parking on the front, the building brought forward and the third floor taken off, with an extension to the back if a fourth bedroom is required.  This is totally different from everything else in the street, and not supported by the Conservation Officer.  The design is the major problem here - car parking is always a problem – and the drawings are deceptive.  The scheme should be rejected on CP7 and BE7.

 

LG:  the principle of development here is correct but agrees that the three-storey design is alien t in this historical part of Cheltenham.   Wasn’t sure if the Heritage and Conservation comments were made tongue in cheek as set down, stating that improvements ‘could be made’.  Notes the Civic Society’s comment that neither the three-storey houses nor the set-back from the rest of the terrace are appropriate.  This proposal is totally foreign to the rest of the terrace, and cannot support it.  Agrees with CP7(c) as a refusal reason, and suggests CP7(b) as well.

 

BD:  three storeys are not on, but supports the principle as the site will take two houses and the present bungalow has very little to offer.  Disagrees with the suggestion that the houses could be brought forward and the parking spaces removed – when the other houses in the street were built there were no cars, but these new properties must be set back in order to get cars in the drive. 

 

KS:  agrees with what has been said.  The three-storey design is contrary to the integrity of the old Victorian buildings with sloped roofs and parapet walls – it is pastiche, with the appearance of two storeys and an ethereal third storey set behind.  The developers need to think about the flat roofs – pitched roofs are more appropriate for our climate; flat roofs are not practical.  The properties should be set forward, as setting them back means stealing parking spaces from the rest of the street.  Could not drive up the street today, and notices two or three cars outside the bungalow, which wouldn’t be able to park there if new driveways are created.  It is unfair to give the new properties more space which could be used to make a larger turning circle.  Won’t support the proposal - a shame as it is almost there, but doesn’t respect the neighbouring area.  

 

PT:  can’t support the three storeys.  These houses could be brought forward and still have room for four car-parking spaces at the side and back.  Has lived in a Victorian terraced street before everyone had cars – it was a nice place, but streets like this are now a mish-mash.  The proposal comes close to mimicking the Victorian terrace but the top storey is inappropriate.

 

WT, in response:

-          the parapet is a useful device historically to conceal the roof, and it was considered appropriate here to conceal the third storey, which is set back to reduce the bulk of the building;

-          officers wanted the buildings brought forward to the building line but as parking was required, the compromise was to set them back and allow parking at the front;

-          when the design was amended, the ground floor windows were enhanced to continue the rhythm of the historic terrace and maintain the hierarchy of the upper windows.

 

BD:  what the report says about parking and what the drawing shows seem to be different.

 

MPayne, in response:

-          the revised plans were submitted after consultation, and the original Heritage and Conservation comments were revised; the set-back was considered to be an improvement;

-          to SW, an S106 to improve the road cannot be required, as this is out of the control of the applicant – it is not a material consideration and money cannot be required for an existing road.

 

SW:  does not suggest the developer should pay for existing road damage but for damage which may be done as a result of the construction.  It is unfair for residents to have to pay for this.

 

MR, in response:

-          the difficulty is that this is a private road owned by a number of people, and not in the control of the applicant.  What SW suggests would be a private legal matter.

 

BF:  following on from WT’s comments, suggests that the developers are not obliged to provide parking spaces in schemes such as this, so close to the centre of town.

 

HM:  playing devil’s advocate, will support of this application, and questions whether BE7 is a suitable refusal reason as it refers to parking in front of historical houses and these will be brand new ones.

 

MPayne, in response:

-          BF is right that there is no obligation to provide parking, but officers would seek to obtain it in this type of situation.  If none is provided, officers would need to see a car parking audit to show that there is available space.

 

BF:  the need to provide parking is what has caused the clash with BE7.

 

MPayne, in response:

-          the particular need is to ensure that parked cars don’t block historic buildings.   BE7 refers to ‘introducing’ car parking, but there is already parking in front of the bungalow.

 

KS:  the bungalow has off-road parking and one driveway.  By creating spaces for the occupants of the new houses, existing residents will lose two spaces – it is not right to allow this.

 

PJ:  for clarification of MR’s point – what is the difference between private and unadopted roads?

 

MPower, in response:

-          there are three types of road:  (1)  private, gated roads with no access to the public; (2) roads maintained by the Highways Authority; (3) roads privately maintained by owners

-          this is (3) a privately-maintained road, and if it is damaged by the developer, the owners could take civil action.

 

CC:  Ms Loughlin discussed the possibility of a construction method statement which has not been discussed by Members.  If the proposal is permitted, can this be added?

 

MPayne, in response:

-          yes, it is acceptable to set hours of working – Environmental Health deal with this, and there are details on the website.

 

HM:  suggests that if the permission is granted, a standard condition for waste and recycling facilities be added – it is not included at present.

 

SW:  for clarification, following the comments about the various types of road, accepts that an S106 would not be appropriate here, but if the residents feel that the developer has created damage to the road, will they be able to claim compensation from the developer?

 

MPower, in response:

-          to be specific, the ‘owners of the road’ can claim for any damage, and these might not be the residents, but yes, it would be a civil action between owners and the developer.

 

Vote on RW’s move to refuse on CP7(b) and (c)

8 in support

7 in objection

REFUSE