Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/00297/FUL
Location:	25 Bennington Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Replacement of existing shopfront and door with timber sliding sash window and timber entrance door
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Refuse
Committee Decision:			Defer
Letters of Rep:		0	Update Report:		Officer comments

 

Cllr Walklett declared an interest on this application – spoke as ward councillor in support, and abstained from the debate and vote.

 

Before consideration of these two applications, MJC provided information on their history.  The first application is for replacement shopfront and door, and is before committee because of the recent history of this application and the interest of Councillors Ryder and Walklett.  Planning permission was originally granted in 2011, for conversion of the building into two flats, with retention of the historic shop front and a condition requiring a construction method statement on how the shop front would be repaired in situ.  In 2012, an application was received to remove the shop front – this was refused, and subsequently dismissed at appeal – the inspector’s decision letter is attached to the report.  The current application is identical, apart from the materials – timber windows are now proposed.  Officer recommendation is to refuse.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Has recently received information which indicates that the Council believes this problem could be solved by two pillars on either side of the window with an RSJ over the top.  This is very wrong.  The consultant has suggested it would require 400mm RSJ inside the window and to the basement.  Has provided Members with several photographic examples of UPVC windows in similar properties around the town – Portland Place in Pittville, and Shurdington Road, where a shop front window has been removed and replaced with a UPVC window.  When the beam became compromised, he spoke to David Robinson in Building Control; Duncan Hage also saw photos of the beam and said it was a false structure.  A meeting was arranged with Ian Smith two weeks later, but this was cancelled at 20 minutes’ notice, and it was suggested that Mr Burnett should consult an engineer.  Andrew Silcock made an inspection and wrote a report, concluding that the beam was unsafe and compromised.  A meeting at the site was attended by Martin Chandler, Karen Radford, Dave Burrows, Mr Burnett, his father, Andrew Silcock.  Karen Radford said it would be easy to install a 400mm beam, but did not take into account the deflection rate.  This is not the original window although Karen Radford says it dates back to before the 1900s.  Duncan Hage was not at the meeting – Dave Burrows turned up uninvited and knowing nothing about the site.  Duncan Hage had previously said that the downstairs window could not take the deflection.  Karen Radford rejected this proposition, and other suggestions have also been rejected by Martin Chandler.  Believes all propositions are rejected due to a complaint he made about Karen Radford’s behaviour towards him in 2012.

 

Councillor Walklett, in support

Addressed Committee in support of Mr Burnett’s application in 2012, which was refused by just two votes.  It is worth bearing in mind the forthcoming major developments in the area – the new supermarket, Brewery, lower High Street will all change the nature of the area, which has been a mix of shops and residential for 40+ years.  Councillor Ryder and he want to help Mr Burnett create good-quality rented accommodation, in a property of dubious heritage value.  All attempts at compromise have failed, and we have now reached an impasse.  In July 2013, Eric Pickles stated that brownfield land should be brought back into productive use as much as possible, and amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, August 2013  allow for greater flexibility for change of use applications which turn commercial properties into residential ones, including five new PD rights, one of which concerns the conversion of shops to homes.  The majority of the proposed amendments were officially confirmed on 14^th March 2013 and came into force 6^th April 2014.  Planning minister Nick Boles has expressed concern that thousands of buildings are going to waste, not want the hassle, and keen to give a boost to town centres and shops etc.  There is no reference to this Order or any suggestion of its existence in the officer report or notes, and has been told this morning that the planning officer did not know about the act.  Does the Planning Committee want to turn down applications for brownfield sites?  This gives the wrong message to the electorate – development of brownfield should be encouraged over greenfield sites.  As speaking as ward member and would not himself ask for a recorded vote, but encourages Members to do so.   Finally, has an email from Cheltenham Development Task Force stating that 25 Bennington Street is currently an eyesore to be deplored and needs to be brought back into use.

 

CC:  there is a blue update with officer response to the photographs provided by Mr Burnett. 

 

[Time allowed for Members to read this.]

 

CL:  regarding comments from the applicant regarding his earlier complaint, Members can be confident that officers have given their professional views on the proposal.  Regarding Councillor Walklett’s suggestion of a recorded vote, eight Members need to request this for it to be brought forward.

 

LG:  is seeking advice.  Having listened to the two speakers, is it not dangerous to make a decision today – there is a good opportunity to defer, to allow the applicant and officers to sit round a table and hammer out common ground principles.  It would not be safe to make a decision on the report as it stands.  Proposes deferral to allow further discussion to take place; this can then be relayed back to Committee when the application comes back for consideration.

 

 MS:  recognises the importance of listed buildings and that if this building was to be made into a museum it would be essential to preserve the frontage as it is, but the window is already compromised – a large portion of it has been legitimately removed, and what remains is quite strange-looking.  Tourists won’t be coming to look at this building.  Supports the view that the time has come to move on and allow the residential development to take place.  It won’t look out of place.  Recognises that there are policies concerning this but we need to apply a degree of common sense.

 

PT:  regarding the applicant’s photographs and the officer comments on the blue update – if these are examples of unauthorised work, what action is being taken to correct it?

 

SW:  can understand why the applicant wants to change the shop front to a sash window, but the reasons being given are structural, which is of great concern.  If there are structural reasons why the window can’t be supported, how would it get support from even more brickwork?  Do officers believe it can be made structurally sound in any way or is the applicant’s argument valid?  It is a lovely shop front and would be missed.

 

AC:  sees very little merit in the window – it is ugly and ruins the look of the road.  The room it will serve will be a bedroom, so maintaining privacy could be difficult with the shop window.  The property would look better with a normal sized sash window.  Appreciates the Planning Inspector’s comments, but in his heart, cannot see the need to preserve this window.

 

BF:  the applicant says that the building is not structurally capable to supporting the work as granted with the window in place.  Is not a civil engineer or a structural engineer, but believes it would be possible to restore the window, and the planning permission should be carried out as granted.  Supports LG’s move to defer.

 

HM:  reading the Inspector’s summing-up of the appeal, in support of the timber shop-front and its historic link, but also aware of the structural problems, would like decisive evidence as to whether this can be resolved or not.  Goes along with the move to defer, to allow further information to be provided.

 

AM:  there are some unanswered questions here, concerning the structural condition of the existing beam and how long it has been like that, and how retaining the shop front can allow it to be reduced in size. There are no clear answers to these questions, so deferral seems a sensible way forward.

 

PT: referring to the drawings, when was this building turned into a shop and the shop front put on?  If it was already a shop when the houses on either side were built, that puts a different complexion on it, but if it became a shop afterwards, and was originally a house, we should consider this application to return it to the original original.

 

PH: stated that the Planning Inspector’s report should be given great weight in this case, but felt Councillor McKinlay raised a very a very important point.  If deferred for more on the discussions already taken place and then if so accords could vote more wholeheartedly

 

MJC, in response:

-          in discussing the structural soundness of the building, we are straying into areas that Planning Committee isn’t usually involved with.  The 2011 consent essentially recognised the issues with the shop front and that the conversion would need to be treated carefully, and a method statement was required to set out how the shop front would be made good and be a suitable element of the ground floor apartment.  This is an important issue and sets the scene – the applicant did not go into this blindly;

-          planning permission was granted, quite rightly, for two apartments, and included a requirement to preserve the important shop front.  However, no method statement was provided and work commenced on site with no details about how the shop front would be preserved.  This is the nub of the issue;

-          regarding the proposed deferral to iron out the issue, is not sure what this will achieve – officers and the applicant have already been in discussion for a number of months;

-          officers – KR, MJC, LW and Building Control officers – have visited the site and the applicant has been to the Planning Department a number of times.  There have been several discussions to try and resolve the issue but it has not been possible to reach a compromise;

-          officers could not support the removal of the old shop front and replacement with a new one – a further planning permission would be needed;

-          if Members opt for deferral, officers will continue discussions with the applicant, but the application will remain to remove the shop front and replace it will sash windows.  Deferral may seem a sensible option tonight but officers have been trying to reach a compromise solution with no success;

-          regarding structural issues, the shop front is in a poor state of repair, propped up by a beam in the shop front.  To make the beam permanent, it needs something to sit on at basement level.  The applicant says this cannot be done, but has provided no evidence to back this up;

-          the shop front is important – it contributes to the conservation area, and the Planning Inspector felt very clearly that it should be retained.  There is no evidence pointing to a different conclusion;

-          regarding harm to the conservation area, the NPPF states that this has to be weighed up against the benefits, but any justification for removing this window is lacking so there is nothing to weight the issue against;

-          the appeal decision gives a very clear conclusion, and there are few material issues that carry more weight than that.  It makes it clear that the shop front is important and should be retained.  In light of that, officers cannot arrive at any different conclusion;

-          Councillor Walklett mentioned permitted development rights but those regulations are not relevant to this application – planning permission was granted for the COU to residential, and building work is required to allow this to take place.  The PD rights don’t apply in conservation areas.

 

CC:  Members commented that the original window has already been reduced in size and part of it replaced by breeze blocks.

 

MJC, in response:

-          this was permitted to make the building more useable and the window narrower, so allowing the conversion to apartments to work.  The main part of the important shop front has been retained.  This was a compromise.

 

KR, in response:

-          to PT’s question re the age of the building, it is thought that it was built in 1884.  It is shown on historic maps, though not possible to tell from these what the front of the building looked like then – there is no historical evidence.  It is also listed as commercial premises in Kelly’s Directories of 1927 (as Bastin & Sons, Printers) and 1930 (as Hayman and Walter, Printers).  Officers cannot say definitively what it looked like, but there is no doubt that it was commercial premises;

-          from her experience of commercial buildings, is confident that the shop front is old.  It may have been repaired over the years, but there is no proof that the timber is not historic;

-          there have been several compromises from CBC officers.  When the original application was submitted in 2011, they took the pragmatic view that they wanted to building to be used for residential, but also wanted to retain the historic shop front – hence the reduction in its width.  The result would be a residential property in the town centre which maintained its historic element;

-          regarding deferment, cannot see that this will help.  The application has been discussed a lot, and the Appeal Inspector has agreed with the original decision.  A construction method statement was requested three years ago and has still not been produced.  Does not feel that deferment will resolve the issue;

-          regarding the structural comments, wrote a statement of case for the Inspector, which is in the public domain, as is an email from MJC to Mr Burnett, detailing a meeting on site to discuss the structural stability of the shopfront and remedial work, which was quite straightforward.  That email is dated from before last summer and was included in the appeal statement;

-          there is an opportunity here to have a building that combines residential use and the historic shop front – cannot add any more than this.

 

LG:  disagrees with the officer response.  This case has been going on for a long time, and one more month won’t make a lot of difference.  The applicant has intimated that things have happened in the last couple of hours which have a bearing on this case and may alter the scenario, and it is important that these be aired.  If we ignore it, the applicant could go to appeal or the ombudsman and say that he was not allowed to present his information to the Committee – this would not be a good route to take.  There was an application in 2011, an appeal in 2012, and now another application in 2014 – it can’t beyond the wit of man for adults to sit down and sort out the substantive points across a table and come back to Committee in one or two months’ time.  The ward councillor should be present at these meetings.  If no agreement can be reached and the application remains the same, at least the Committee can be clear that it has taken the right course of action.  It would be wrong not to defer to allow this to be opened up and some common ground sought – we are talking about a planning application, not a state of war, and should be able to come to a compromise.  Suggests deferral for one or two months.

 

DS:  has looked at the pictures, and listened to KR’s historical analysis of the shop front, but considers it to have been compromised already by being reduced in size.  If it is replaced by a wooden sash window, the upper floor windows should be wooden as well.

 

MJC, in response:

-          if Members want to defer the application, officers will continue to negotiate with the applicant and try to find some middle ground – although as this has been tried on numerous occasions, can only commit officers to trying to find a solution.  The applicant will have to buy in to this too, hopefully taking notice of the Members’ comments he has heard tonight.  However, cannot promise that a different scheme can be worked out.

 

AC:  cannot support deferral.  The window is compromised and boarded up, and two families will be denied a home for another two months.

 

HM:  regarding the age of the windows, could the census returns of 1898 and 1901 be used to discover if a shop-keeper was living at this address?

 

Vote taken on LG’s move to defer

6 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

DEFER

 

CC:  LG stated that he hoped the application can come back to Committee in one or two months, but considers it fair that it should be allowed to take its course.  Is sure that the applicant and officers will want to see the back of this application as soon as possible.

 

LG:  will the discussions include the ward councillor?

 

CC:  the ward councillor has been involved to date and will continue to be.

 

MS:  as the other application at this address depends on what is agreed for the ground floor, suggests that it is deferred as well.