Agenda item

Officer introduction:

CH described the application as above.  The site is in the St Paul’s Character Area and is currently vacant; it was previously used by a car mechanic and car wash business. There are a number of buildings to the rear of the site, and the boundary to the highway is defined by a 2.4m brick wall, with access from Swindon Road and Brunswick Street.    The site is identified in the Townscape Analysis Map as ‘a significant negative building/space’.  The application is at Committee because the site is owned by CBH, with a recommendation to permit. 

Public Speaking: none.

Member debate:

PB:  this is a great scheme and a huge improvement on the area.  Would just query the railing on the side, and whether we can be sure that the landscaping is maintained. 

JW:  agrees with these comments - affordable housing on a brownfield site can only be good.  Has spoken to some of the objectors, and understands that St Paul’s Residents Association, while supporting redevelopment of the site, considers the large size of the block to be out of keeping with the area.  In response, would say that there is already a precedent for buildings of this size, with the flats and hotel on the south side of Swindon Road.  One neighbour made a complaint about light entry through their window, but officers do not consider this will be the case.   We should applaud CBH for making use of this garage site and providing much-needed affordable housing in Cheltenham.

CHay:  can officers confirm that there will not be spiked railings around the site?

DS:  notes ten apartments and seven parking spaces are proposed.  Will the parking spaces be allocated or free for all?  From experience in his ward, knows that unallocated spaces can cause grief.

CH, in response:

-       to PB, the railings are regarded as a positive element in the scheme, with landscaping retained behind.  Condition 10  provides additional information on planting to ensure that it is appropriate;

-       to CHay, flat wooden railings are proposed, not spiked;

-       to DS, confirmed that parking arrangements are adequate for a sustainable town centre location; the car parking spaces are not allocated, but there are also 10 cycle spaces and car parking available nearby.  There have been no objections from the County Highways Officer.

KS:  has a few concerns about this application but not enough to vote against it.  Agrees with local residents that the area could do with fewer HMOs and flats for a better balance, adding that this site would have been ideal for student accommodation.  The design is OK, but not particularly in keeping with other designs along the road; it’s a shame that no-one planned for them all to match - the area is a lot better than it was in the 1970s and ‘80s but it could have been more holistic, rather than defined at the whim of a developer at any time.

CHay:  homes built by CBH are usually excellent and built to Code 4.  Are these Code 4?  Didn’t notice any photo-voltaic panels on the roof; it would be a missed opportunity not to include them on a new-build, and on this one in particular.

CH, in response:

-       affordable housing requires a high level of design.  Solar panels are an aspiration, but cannot be insisted upon at present - there are limited policies concerning this in the current Local Plan.

CHay:  these are our buildings.  Can we pass on the comment that we would like to see them built with solar panels?

GB:  we could include an informative if everyone is happy with that.

PB:  noted that the University application included a condition about keeping seagulls away.  Is there a condition to prevent them from nesting on this flat roof?  They are a huge problem.

KS:  agrees that there must be some kind of seagull mitigation, with Matalan and the tip close by.

PT:  seagulls are more likely to nest on chimneys than on flat rooves.   Regarding solar panels, if CBH can install them elsewhere, can’t see why they won’t install them here.

CH, in response:

-       confirmed that solar panels are actually included;

-       confirmed that a condition to discourage seagulls can be added.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with further condition added in respect of deterring seagulls

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT