Agenda item

EP introduced the application, to demolish the existing dwelling at the junction of London Road and Ryeworth Road, and replace with two contemporary dwellings.  The change of levels within the site will require a considerable amount of excavation work to enable this.  The application is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected. Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gavin Hill, neighbour, in objection

Lives immediately next door to the application site, and while having no objection to the principle of demolition and erection of two new dwellings – which the site can accommodate with negligible highways impact – is strongly concerned about the contemporary architecture proposed.  In general, likes contemporary architecture where it is coherent and sits well in its setting, but this scheme does neither, and is out of keeping with the Cudnall Street Conservation Area in which is lies.  It is also out of keeping with the current street frontage on an important approach to town – existing dwellings on both sides are traditional, with pitched roofs.  The contemporary, flat-roofed dwellings would represent an unwelcome interruption to the existing street frontage.  This is not infill or garden-grabbing – it is an important street frontage and any new proposal should conform rather than be at odds with it.  Cannot agree with the Architects’ Panel’s view that the proposal sits comfortably with its neighbours, agreeing rather with the Civic Society and Parish Council, who consider it shows little respect for its context and is not appropriate in this location.  The officer report states that in line with the NPPF, the proposal replaces poor design with better design, responds to the local character, and doesn’t result in significant harm to the conservation area – but in fact it fails on all these points.  In recent years, No. 288 London Road was demolished and replaced with 12 dwellings of traditional design, including pitched roofs.  These blend well into the street scene and are an improvement on what was there before.  This proposal should have been designed along similar lines. 

Member debate:

PT:  there is some question in the report about red or buff bricks – what was decided?

RG:  this is interesting – the Architects’ Panel says yes, the Civic Society says no.  Recognises the concern about the design of the proposed dwellings in the conservation area, and notes the Conservation Officer’s request that the hedge be retained to shield the buildings.  Is worried about this, looking to the future – if the scheme is OK as long as it is disguised, it must be the wrong design?

RW:  wishes common sense could be applied here.  One look is all it takes to see that this proposal is appalling and shouldn’t have seen the light of day.  Will vote against it.

BD:  it looks as if someone has got dressed but forgotten to put their top on! – a horrible design, in the wrong place.  Notes a neighbour’s comment about the difficulty in putting their comments on the internet – has this been sorted?  In the 21^st century, we should be able to get this right.

MS:  this is totally out of character.  The design is not suitable for this area.  It is more of a Mediterranean style dwelling, and that is where it belongs.

JF:  agrees with the Civic Society here – the dwellings look like two matchboxes next to the existing houses and do not reflect or enhance the conservation area.  Will vote against it.

SW:  has recently returned from New Zealand, and noted in Christchurch, which was devastated by an earthquake, buildings made from ships’ containers – very similar to this proposal, but more colourful and built quickly out of need.  The flat roofs don’t work here.  It is a conservation area; if it wasn’t, may be struggling about whether or not to support the scheme, but as it is, cannot support it.

KS:  has a heartfelt request for planning officers when considering applications with flat roofs:  they may be modern and innovative, but can cause huge problems down the line with internal water, particularly in view of the heavy rainfall we are getting now.  These roofs are fine in sunny, Mediterranean climates but not here – the design is impractical in this country, and traditional roofs are pitched for a reason.  Is not sure about this design in this location but in view of the grain and the prominence of the site, thinks it is probably not right, and is inclined to vote against it. 

BF:  it is interesting that Members are discussing the design, when a similar dwelling – Eslington Mews - won a Civic Society award and was described as an architectural gem, and Century Court has been praised as fantastic and practical.  People don’t like to see modern architecture next to old, but the new Art Gallery and Museum falls into this category, and has also won an award; it can be seen in other towns, too, and the all-glass Shard in south-east London is breath-taking.  In view of this, it’s difficult to make a case that this proposal is unacceptable here.

PJ:  the longevity of roofs is outside the Committee’s remit, and personally has no issues with the design.  The height has been reduced and is OK – will be interested to hear the Conservation Officer’s response to Members’ comments today.  This is certainly a prominent location, and the proposal is like something from Grand Designs, becoming mainstream.

PT:  on planning view, made a point of looking at the surrounding houses.  All but one in a wide circle around it have pitched traditional roofs.  The only dwelling which doesn’t is an old house with a unique style of roof.  Cannot support this proposal.  Didn’t like it on site - it doesn’t complement the other houses.  Would be find elsewhere, but this is the wrong place.

PH:  had been trying to observe the golden rule of planning committee that if intending to vote for proposal, there is no need to speak, but wants to speak up for a variety of housing styles everywhere, otherwise we end up with pastiche.  At 2m below Ryeworth Road, this will not be very visible, and the clever use of the site should be acknowledged.  Likes modern buildings, which often win Civic Society awards.  As long as the design is good, they add variety and interest to an area.

GB:  is not a huge fan of modern buildings, but acknowledges they have their role.  However, regrets that we could lose our culture of houses if too many flat-roofed houses are built - roofs are where we store treasures and cultural heritage.  Despite this, cannot vote against this proposal.

CC:  will ask KR to comment, but notes that several Members have said they will not vote in support of the application but no move to refuse has been put forward.  Members might like to consider this.

EP, in response:

-          as background, the previous application included a third storey which was considered out of scale with the other buildings around it.  A slight alteration of the position on the plot has resulted in spacing with which officers are comfortable;

-          the final finish of the dwellings has not yet been agreed – a condition requires samples.  The drawings show buff-coloured bricks, but this can be revisited in line with the overall pallet.

KR, in response:

-          it is good to hear a full debate about design – gave a talk about this recently, and hopes that Members have benefitted from this;

-          as part of the talk, mentioned proportions and duality – these are applicable here;

-          can only refuse a scheme in relation to policy, and there is no policy to say a house has to have a pitched roof.  There are many examples of houses with flat roofs and shallow pitched roofs not visible from the street.  This is not a reason to refuse;

-          the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions shouldn’t impose architectural styles or tastes, or stifle innovation and originality by requiring conformity to certain forms and styles, although it is proper to promote local distinctiveness.  this would be debated at appeal;

-          regarding local distinctiveness, there are two distinct elements to the site:  the approach from London Road is quite varied around Sixways, with listed buildings, old buildings, red brick houses, a coach house conversion, the London Inn, regency dwellings and so on.  Ryeworth Road sees a change in level, and is very green which helps with the setting of buildings on either side of the road, and there is quite a variety of styles further down Ryeworth Road.  Objectors say the flat-roofed dwellings won’t  fit in to the surrounding area – but what should fit to?;

-          the hedge is important, not simply because it will hide the new buildings but because Ryeworth Road has a rural feel and this should be retained.  Has reservations about whether this will be practical, but the trees officer says it will be – laurel is very tough – and we must take his advice.

LG:  comments so far have concerned the design and the flat roof, but the first part of the application is for demolition of a house in a conservation area, not permitted under policy BE3.  On planning view, noticed that the house is identical to that immediately adjacent to it and similar to others in the area.  Under BE3, demolition is not permitted if the house makes a positive contribution to the area.  Removing this house will change the area completely.  BE3 should be included as a refusal reason.

EP, in response:

-          regarding the demolition of the existing building, this is not an attractive house, not identical to its neighbour, with a poor extension and in bad condition.  The proposal is a good re-use of the site.  Policy BE3 is therefore not appropriate as a refusal reason.

LG:  any building left to go downhill will end up looking down and out.  It is a feature of the conservation area.  We have policies to cover this, and a lot of time has been spent trying to make them work.  If we go back on them at the first opportunity, this is rather odd.

CC:  does LG think the application should be refused on that basis?

LG:  yes.

RW:  the new building doesn’t fit with its neighbours and is a poor design – Policy CP7(c) can also be used as a refusal reason.

PJ:  doesn’t agree with these reasons.  Will vote in support of the officer recommendation.

EP, in response:

-          most issues have now been covered.  Officers do not consider the existing building to be a positive feature in the conservation area – it is not designated, nor is it a heritage asset – and the proposed dwellings are felt to be appropriate.

BF:  last month, Members were happy to vote for the demolition of The Little Owl in Charlton Kings.  Buildings are being demolished all over town – Sandy Lane Road, Prestbury Road, The Greyhound.

Vote taken on move to refuse on BE3 and CP7(c)

8 in support

7 in objection

REFUSE