Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MJC described the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillors Prince, Lillywhite and Babbage due to objections about over-development of the site, highways considerations, and amenity issues.  The recommendation to refuse is based on contextual analysis of the site and the SPD on garden land development.  Officers feel that the proposed building is too large for the site.  Members can debate other issues, but they should be aware that the officer recommendation to refuse is based on one issue only.

Public Speaking:

Mr John Gill, neighbour, in objection

On behalf of 100 objectors to this proposal, urges Members to refuse permission.  The proposal is out of character with the surrounding area, which comprises low-scale dwellings in mature and mixed landscapes.  It does not complement or respect neighbouring dwellings or the area; the design of the apartment block is uninspiring and of poor quality, its size and massing incongruous with adjacent dwellings, and will have a detrimental impact on neighbours’ privacy; it has not been shown to be sustainable, apart from being within walking or cycling distance of the town centre; its size, massing and overbearing nature will severely damage the amenity value of adjacent properties; it will lead to on-street parking along Cleevelands Drive, where the road narrows to 5.5m, and The Chestnuts where on-street parking will reduce the road to a single vehicle width; noise and light pollution will increase due to additional traffic and people movements, which will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents; local services, particularly the drainage system, are already under excessive strain and will be pushed even further; development of the site will impact on the biodiversity of the local environment and erode this valued wildlife corridor; the significant and demonstrable harm of the proposal will outweigh the limited benefit of a small increase in the housing supply.  In summary, residents believe the proposal is contrary to the NPPF, the Local Plan and the SPD on garden land.  They are not opposed to redevelopment of the site but are against inappropriate development.

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, on behalf of the applicant, in support

This application is the second at the site – the first, currently at appeal, was for 14 units, and was refused last December on the following grounds:  unacceptable over-development of the site; architecturally uninspiring; impact on neighbouring amenity; unacceptable overlooking; and impact on trees.  In response, the applicant appointed a new architect who revised the scheme to address  concerns.  The officer report confirms that the principle of development is acceptable, a contemporary design is appropriate, neighbouring amenity won’t be unreasonably impacted, site access and parking provision is acceptable, and protected trees are not harmed by the proposal.  The recommendation to refuse is therefore disappointing as the architects have fully addressed concerns, but a finely-balanced judgement based on grounds relating to the design of the proposed building.  Members understand that the NPPF requires authorities to boost the housing supply, and where they are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should apply.  This scheme is clearly sustainable, and should therefore trigger the presumption in favour.  Regarding the design, the NPPF encourages authorities not to stifle innovation or originality or refuse applications for sustainable developments because of concerns about incompatibility with existing buildings (paragraphs 60 and 65).  In conclusion, this proposal is smaller than the refused scheme, and addresses all the points raised by the officer at pre-app and post-submission discussions.  In line with the NPPF, any adverse impact in the approval of this scheme would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits; therefore urges Members to approve.  

Member debate:

MB:  understood that Cheltenham now has a five-year supply of housing land, contrary to what the last speaker said.

MJC, in response:

-       yes, that is correct.

BF:  the officer is recommending refusal as its contemporary design is contrary to policy CP7, yet Members have just permitted an application with a modern design.  How does this scheme not comply with CP7?  Design is subjective, but we need consistency when applying the policy.  This proposal is in a different location, but the policy is the same.  Also, the proposal is being considered as a garden land development, but once the house has been demolished, won’t the site be considered a brownfield site, not a garden?

KS:  is concerned about parking –it looks like the spaces will be very close to the neighbouring house.  Considers the design quite nice, but not in keeping with the area or the neighbouring properties.  Is concerned about the gradual erosion of the quality of the area.  Agrees with the refusal reasons suggested by the officer, but would expand on them.  Many of the objectors mention traffic and parking; the site is close to a junction, and although highways officers have not really objected, remains concerned about traffic, neighbouring amenity, and that the proposal is out of character.

MS:  agrees with KS - the proposal is out of character with the area, and highways issues unresolved.

AL:  on Planning View, was shocked by the mass of the proposed building; it is very high, and located right on the corner.  Checked today about how cars would get in and out; the previous refusal reason assumed an average road width of 6.5m, but it is in fact only 5.5m and Evesham Road/ Huntsbridge Close is a difficult junction, particularly if cars are parked.  Cleevelands Drive was busy with deliveries – the planning view bus had trouble getting past – so highway issues are not resolved.

PB:  used to live in Cleevelands Close and considers it one of the nicest estates in town, well-designed and maintained;.  the houses are well-planned and have stood the test of time.  This proposal is inappropriate in scale, the result of the developer’s greed, showing little common sense or thought for the people who will be living there.  Would suggest potentially adding to the refusal reason suggested by the officer - would say it is not in keeping with the area and will have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity; it should be thrown out.  Accepts that the site will be re-developed at some stage, but would like to see a proposal for three or four dwellings in keeping with the area.

MJC, in response:

-       to PB, confirmed that officers considered other refusal reasons but did not find them sustainable to advance, but do not want to ‘under refuse’ this application;

-       to BF, policy CP7 is quite wide-ranging, not just about architecture but also about lay-out and context; it is the policy which the garden-land SPD hangs on.  It’s true that consistency is important in decision-making but CP7 is broad in what it allows planners to consider.  He is correct that if the house is demolished, the site would no longer be garden land, but the SPD refers to garden land and infill sites, and officers use the document in this context;

-       officers feel that the site can take a bigger building than what is currently there, and have no concerns about the architecture of the proposed building – there is just too much of it.

GB:  do Members have any additional reasons to refuse?

PB:  if CP7 covers context, and the proposal is clearly out of context with other houses in the area, is OK to go with that.

BF:  the design and location of this dwelling are reminiscent of Albert Road and Pittville Crescent Lane, where a post-war house was demolished and replaced by an apartment block which sits very nicely on the site.  This design is not dissimilar.   Finds it misleading that some things are acceptable under CP7 and others, which are bland and poor, are refused.   Modern design won’t move forward unless we are more open-minded.

KS:  can highways and amenity issues be used as refusal reasons as well?  Not sure that they would stand up at appeal, but the residents clearly think them important.

CHay:  isn’t over-inspired by this proposal; in lots of ways feels rather neutral about it.  It would be useful to have some analysis and understanding of when traffic movements in and out of the proposed development would be expected – they won’t all be at 8.30am, but at different times of day, and it’s fair to say that Cleevelands Drive isn’t always jam-packed. Regarding the size of the proposal, there are apartment blocks further along Evesham Road and on West Approach Drive.  The previous application for 14 flats on this site is currently at appeal; the developer has tried to work with officers, appointed new architects, spent a lot of money on the re-design,  and there seemed to be a level of agreement that they were working along the right lines. It is a worry if a misunderstanding occurred during pre-application discussions which resulted in the recommendation to refuse. 

AL:  suggests that highways issues would be a valid reason to refuse and should be included.

MJC, in response:

-       highways issues have been considered by officers; highways officers assessed the application and their clear recommendation is that the proposal is acceptable, that the entry to Cleevelands Drive would retain suitable visibility, and the exit from Cleevelands Drive to Evesham Road would too.  They are the experts and planning officers are guided by them;

-       it would therefore be a very difficult position to defend at an appeal, with no expert on hand to support our case.  Refusing an application against technical advice will be considered as acting unreasonably; without evidence to justify our stance, we would be in a difficult position;

-       to BF, it isn’t true to say officers have given misleading advice.  Each case is judged on its merits, and Pond House sits comfortably on the corner of Albert Road and Pittville Crescent Lane, surrounded by big villas, a very different site from this one.  The immediate context of 3 Cleevelands Drive is two-storey detached houses and bungalows with space around them, which led officers to a different conclusion from Pond House.  The beauty of the SPD is that it builds on the inherent consistency but allows different conclusions on different sites;

-       to CHay, the applicant was advised that this scheme would be unacceptable.  It was considered by the Architects’ Panel two or three times, and it did not favour it.  Planning officers’ opinions were split but the overwhelming view was that it was too much for this site.  The applicant was informed 3-4 months ago and advised to go back to the drawing board, but chose not to -  a commercial decision, and the applicant is understandably frustrated now, but officer advice has not been misleading or inappropriate.

PB:  it was clear on Planning View that this proposal on the corner of Evesham Road and Cleevelands Drive would have an appalling impact.  There are larger developments along Evesham Road, but this proposal would not front Evesham Road – most of the impact would be on the adjacent residential properties and Cleevelands Drive.  Supports the recommendation to refuse.

AC:  agrees with PB.  On Planning View, felt that flats on this site would be OK but this proposal is one storey too high.  Will also support the refusal.

PT:  agrees.  This proposal is totally inappropriate.  There is room for one or two extra houses without altering the fundamental grain of the area, but Cleevelands Drive cannot take a bigger building.  There would be no access to Evesham Road, only to Cleevelands Drive, although we are being told that this is not a valid refusal reason.  It’s a bad design for the area and should be refused.

KS:  Members must take care not to miss any other possible refusal reasons, apart from highways issue and loss of amenity.  Officers say that policy CP4 would not stand up here, but PB said that it was clear on Planning View what a huge impact the proposal would have on neighbouring amenity.  Can CP4 not be added for that reason?

MJC, in response:

-       there are different things to consider when looking at loss of amenity.  Regarding privacy, the upper floors of the proposal would be the ones to consider, but these are far away from the boundary; there will be some impact, but not an unacceptable impact;

-       the proposal passes the light test;

-       if Members want to consider amenity, they should concentrate on the overbearing nature of the proposal.  This will always be a subjective judgement, but officers consider it sufficiently far from the boundaries not to have a major impact.  It is principally two storeys high, the third storey being set well in, which also helps with the privacy and bulk.  Officers consider the building is just too big for the context of the site, not that it will have a negative impact on the amenity of adjacent properties.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

13 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE