Agenda item

 

Application Number:			15/00185/FUL
Location:	2 Highland Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of dwelling and single garage
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		4	Update Report:		None

 

CH introduced the proposal for a single two-storey dwelling with front-facing gable in the side and rear garden of 2 Highland Road, a large two-storey detached house with two accesses, one shared with No. 62 Sandy Lane which will form the access to the new dwelling.  The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposal, and a new one erected.  The recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Wendy Hopkins, planning agent on behalf of neighbour, in objection

Neighbours and the Architects Panel are concerned that this application is of poor quality in both architectural and urban design terms.  The cramped form of development would compromise the residential amenities enjoyed at 62 Sandy Lane. The immediate locality is characterised by properties with a large footprint set in large plots, individual properties predominantly 20^th century and brick-built. This site is visually prominent, on the junction of Sandy Lane and Highland Road, and therefore important in the context of the wider area.  Members work hard when considering planning guidance documents such as the local plan, the emerging local plan, and the supplementary planning guidance on garden land and infill, to promote a high standard of architectural and urban design.  This means proposals should respond to their context and reinforce the sense of place, not filling every gap between every building.  It is difficult to find any architectural merit in the proposed dwelling being considered today, being more akin to a light industrial building at a domestic scale, shoe-horned into a gap existing dwellings, gable end onto road, with plastic brown weatherboard and grey uPVC windows – which do not, by any stretch of the imagination, reflect the locality. The NPPF requires high-quality design, and the need for this is a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning.  Members should consider it would be difficult to support approval of this scheme on policy grounds.  The government has announced this week that architecture is to move from the department of culture to the department of communities, to sit alongside planning and housing – a clear indication that high quality design is fundamental to planning. 

 

 

Russell Ranford, agent on behalf of applicant, in support

The design of this proposal is the result of a detailed assessment of the site, and in accordance with the SPD.  Members will have seen on their site visit that a 1.5-storey dwelling on this site is a sensible approach, and far from being shoe-horned into the site as has been suggested, it only takes up 10% of the site, unlike other dwellings in the area which take up more than 20% and are therefore more ‘shoe-horned’.  The plot size is comparable to No. 6 Highland Road, and the plot area and width ratios are 10.2% and 55.4% respectively, lower than others in Highland Road, which have a width ratio of almost 80%.  It is disappointing that the Design and Access Statement has not been acknowledged - subjective opinions on the proposed dwelling do not link to the facts and information provided.  There have been objections to the gable end design features, but this is comparable to the design and appearance of No. 6 Highland Road.  Other elements of the design can be found in the immediate locality, and the new dwelling can be said to respects the local built character.  The scheme is in keeping with the local plan and national planning policy.  It is a sustainable development, creating a new dwelling without any harm to neighbouring properties. 

 

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  realises that design is subjective, but in this case agrees with the Architects’ Panel that this is poor.  To say that this proposal ‘creates no harm’ is not a reason to permit it; it should enhance the area.  Therefore proposes refusal on Policy CP7 and NPPF paragraphs 56, 64 and 117.

 

JW:  is not sure how to interpret the final sentence of paragraph 6.11 in the report – ‘… loss of sunlight would not be minimal’.

 

CH, in response:

-       this is a typo – it should read ‘loss of sunlight would be minimal’.

 

BF:  supports PB’s comments.  Does not consider this a decent design.

 

KS:  this isn’t the right development in this location, and will disrupt the rhythm of the street scene.  It will harm the leafy, suburban feel of the area, and result in three very different properties squashed together on a busy junction.  This is not good enough.  Will support the move to refuse.

 

AC:  there is space for another dwelling here but this design is not right – it is awful, appalling.  The applicant should go back and think again.

 

SW:  on the drawings, it seems to work, but looking at the area on Google is left thinking how it will fit in.  If the applicant was planning to demolish No. 2 Highland Road and divide the plot between two properties, this could work, but the current proposal looks like an industrial building, shoe-horned into a small space, and just doesn’t work or fit in.

 

CH, in response:

-       PB’s comments regarding the subjectivity are noted, but if refused, the refusal reasons must be right.  PB suggests CP7 but needs to be more specific as to what harm the proposal will cause.

 

GB:  before considering refusal reasons, will take vote on officer recommendation to permit.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

13 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

MJC, in response:

-       PB has suggested CP7 as a refusal reason, and Members have said they don’t like the design, but they haven’t said why.  Officers need their objective analysis about what is wrong with the proposal, when it is clear that there is a variety of architecture in the area.

 

PB:  at the end of the day, it is a subjective view.  Personally does not like the proposal because it is inadequate, will disrupt the street scene and is a poor quality design.  We should look for better.

 

CHay:  there are some positive things about the design, but is concerned about the use of materials.  The proposal doesn’t appear to fit in with other buildings in the area.  Sometimes a modern building amid older ones will work, but in other cases it can spoil the character of the road.  This area needs something with more character about it; the proposal is quite simplistic with a strange choice of materials.  It could work elsewhere but not among the mature buildings on this road.

 

GB:  this is still a subjective view.  Officers need real issues to help them in an appeal situation.

 

BF:  CP7(c) requires development to complement and respect neighbouring development and the character of the locality – this does not, and an Inspector would agree.  It may be better if it was ultra-modern, but in its current form doesn’t complement or respect the neighbouring locality.

 

GB:  officers need clear grounds about precisely why the proposal is to be refused.

 

KS:  the key issue is the cramped form of development compared with the houses on either side.  No. 6 is a bungalow, not too dissimilar, but should the new house improve the area or simply replicate what is there just because it is there?  Has also looked at Google, and notes the view to the AONB from this site.  There is a gap between the two properties, and is not sure what kind of development here would be in keeping.  Does not think the right sort of development can be achieved on this site - it is just too small.  An ancillary building – e.g. a granny annexe -  might work, but the current proposal interferes with the street scene at a prominent location which needs extra special care. 

 

MJC, in response:

-       is hearing two separate analyses from CHay and KS, concerning different issues;

-       CHay is talking about proposed materials, which is helpful but narrow – questions if this would be successful at an appeal;

-       KS’s comments are different, concerned with whether there should be a dwelling on this site at all.

Officers feel the site can take the proposal.  It is not particularly inspiring but there is variety in the area. Is worried about the chances of defending this at appeal;

-       officers need to hear more about how to move forward with the refusal reasons.

 

KS:  agrees that the materials are an issue, but this could be sorted out by condition if necessary.  MJC says officers feel the plot is big enough, but suggests that the mass and scale of the proposed dwelling are inappropriate on this site.  There is also the concerns of the residents on Sandy Lane to consider, who will be affected by this.

 

PB:  it is clear that no Members like this design.  Suggests that NPPF paragraphs 56 and 64 and policy CP7(c) are clear refusal reasons.

 

MJC, in response:

-       these are all relevant quotes and can supplement the refusal reason, but Members need to specify why they consider the design to be poor.  CHay has said the materials are inappropriate, which could be the nub of the refusal reason;

-       had thought the debate would go the way it has, but considers the refusal reasons to be weak.

 

BF:  reasons for this refusal are similar to those of the last application considered tonight, where MS suggested leaving in as many as possible – if the Inspector doesn’t like them, he will throw them out.  The Committee’s decision is to refuse, and officers should respect this.

 

GB:  officers do respect Members’ decision, but want to get as good a refusal reason as possible.

 

PT:  suggests a line be drawn under the refusal reasons as they are.  If officers can come up with anything that strengthens the case, they can discuss it with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

GB:  questions whether officers should be concocting refusal reasons outside the meeting.

 

FC:  Members have provided a number of refusal reasons which can be put to use.  Another not previously mentioned is the sustainability of the cladding.  Has significant sympathy with BF’s last comment.  The Committee view is clearly that this proposal should not go ahead; officers should put their minds to how best to represent this.

 

GB:  the Committee is required to give adequate reasons to refuse; officers are not employed to make up reasons.  Proper refusal reasons are required from Members. 

 

FC:  officers should be able to fashion reasons and provide a relevant response for a planning appeal from what has been said.

 

GB:  officers will support the reasons Members have given but don’t feel they are strong enough for what they need.  The message from Committee is that it doesn’t want to support the proposal on design grounds and materials.

 

KS:  the comments of the Architects’ Panel are very clear, stating that the context and design will alienate the proposed dwelling from its neighbours, and not supporting it in its current form. Any dwelling here would have to respect the space better.  Suggests spells out reason for refusal.

 

PB:  is OK for this view to be incorporated in the refusal reason.

 

Vote on PB’s move to refuse on CP7(c) (with reference to the comments from the Architects’ Panel) , NPPF paragraphs 56 and 64

12 in support

0 in objection

3 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED – REFUSE