Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for a single dwelling on land currently used for ten car-parking spaces, the garages there having recently been demolished.  Again, there is a parking strategy to mitigate the loss of the parking spaces, but again officers’ view is that the application is acceptable in isolation. The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Cllr Whyborn, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Firstly, would commend CBC and CBH for moving forward on the principle of much needed social and affordable new homes, and focussing on brownfield sites – this shows forward thinking and addresses the supply side.  However, has some reservations of his own, and on behalf of residents, nearly all about parking, but also crime prevention, road safely, and neighbour access issues at Ullswater.  Regarding 14/01681/FUL, Ullswater Road has a very narrow bend and cars have to pull into the site entrance when passing.  Many of the bungalows around the site are occupied by the elderly and disabled, but would house more car-owners in the future.  While acknowledging that the demolition of the Ullswater B garage site will help with regard to the loss of parking, Members should question officers about whether this is enough.  Parking on the Lakeside estate is already problematic, exacerbated by displaced parking by Paragon Laundry employees, even though the worst issues are generally in the evenings and at weekends.  Members also need to be satisfied that loss of light, overlooking and neighbour access have been adequately considered. 

Regarding 14/01700/FUL, is very clear that there is not enough parking proposed here to replace the 13 or more spaces and 13 garages that will be lost.  The parking survey suggests the garage occupants can be re-housed elsewhere, but also says that only 3-6 cars which currently park on the hardstanding must be re-parked, which is manifest nonsense.  Has observed nine parked vehicles on a Thursday afternoon, ten on a Sunday, with a further five vehicles parked in the turning head – pictures have been circulated.  Street parking is limited in Haweswater Road, and it is unrealistic and bad practice to expect residents to park in Alma Road, or to displace parking to nearby estate roads such as Buttermere, Ennerdale and Thirlmere Roads, which are already heavily parked.

Planning officers have mentioned an offer to clear a further garage site - Ennerdale B and Thirlmere have been talked about - but this isn’t included in the report.  If the Committee is minded to permit the application, provision of parking through demolition of a further site should be a condition, with the choice of site a matter of consultation with local residents. 

Finally, neighbours are concerned that positioning Flats 2 and 3 next to No. 5 Haweswater Road and Flats 1 and 2 next to 57 Alma Road will create blind alleyways, which aren’t overlooked, contrary to the policy to ‘design out crime’.  Members needs to be satisfied that this issue has been adequately addressed.

Member debate:

PT:  has reservations about this house.  It is a large house, desperately needed for a larger family, but is not utilising the land well, with a lot of extraneous space around it; CBH should leave this site as a parking area and build a detached house elsewhere.  Noted on planning view that there were cars parked here, making use of the space.  Has some reservations that, without any restrictions, these houses may soon end up ex-CBH properties, having been sold in the open market.  How can we retain them as social housing? Can’t support this particular scheme as it needs re-thinking.

KS:  also has concerns with this one.  There were a lot of cars and vans parked there at 3.30, and couldn’t see where else they could park.  We need homes, including affordable housing for bigger families, but have to make sure we use the right sites for them.  Is not sure this is right – the house looks awkward in the site, and people won’t want to leave their nice cars too far from home.  CBH is doing a great job, but there must be a better site for this house.  It is clear that this application could cause problems for the garden of one house and a lot of inconvenience for the community.

CHay:   the houses being built by CBH are not council houses; CBH is a social landlord, so different rules apply, and finance is raised differently.  CBH manages Cheltenham’s council houses but also builds its own.  This house doesn’t look fantastic in the plot but fits quite well considering the plot is a funny shape to begin with.  The garages, which were small and not fit for purpose, have been knocked down, and free parking provided on the site  Parking provision is being made elsewhere, so all we have to consider is the importance of providing social housing by recycling a redundant garage site.

BF:  we are losing our way here.  This is an application by CBH, not Cheltenham Borough Car Parking.  Of course residents want to park outside their houses, but some households have three cars – it is the same problem everywhere.  We are in desperate need of affordable rented homes; big developers know they can get out of providing them, but this scheme will provide houses for local people who may never get on the housing ladder.  Concern about where to park a third car is a bit off.  CBH is the best social landlord for miles around, providing good quality housing for people who need them, not for profit.  Cannot see why we are so worried about car parks.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT