Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above – a contemporary extension to a Grade II listed building, providing an additional 430 square metres of office space, with parking on the lower ground floor.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, in view of concerns from local residents.  The recommendation is to permit/grant.

Public Speaking:

Mr Ian Brothwood, applicant, in support

Is partner of the international law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, which is based at Compass House but requires additional space to accommodate existing staff and future growth.  The firm has been based in Cheltenham for 30 years, and provides advice to major corporate companies, privately-owned businesses and individuals.  The Cheltenham office provides an important centre for specialist advice on key focus areas, and for serving the local market between Birmingham, Bristol and Oxford.  Since moving to Compass House in 2001, staff numbers have increased by 34%, now having just under 90 members of staff, and the firm is looking to expand and grow with Compass House now at capacity, while remaining in Cheltenham.  Additional space from the proposed extension will provide space for a further 30 staff.  The firm has been looking for alternative accommodation in Cheltenham for two years, but there is nothing suitable. Staff and clients are committed to the central location of Compass House, and the decision to seek permission to extend was unanimous among staff and welcomed by clients.  75% of the staff live in or close to Cheltenham and 50% of clients in Gloucestershire, creating clear economic benefits for Cheltenham.  In addition, a conservative estimate of the firm’s business contribution to the local economy is £3million.  Through discussions with CBC planning and conservation officers, have tried to reach a balance, bearing in mind neighbouring amenity, design, and heritage and planning concerns, with the original proposal withdrawn and revised, and the proposal now comes well within the daylight standards in respect of neighbouring properties, as required by the council.  An open evening for neighbours was also held.  Hopes that Members agree a balance has been achieved and can support the proposal, in keeping with NPPF guidance to encourage and support economic growth, the need to reverse the decline in Cheltenham’s office space, and CBC’s objective to attract and retain high-value employment.

Councillor Harman, in objection

Thanked Planning Committee for allowing him to speak – this is the first time he has done so, which indicates the strength of feeling among residents of Southwood Lane, several of whom are in the public gallery tonight.  Could put forward a range of issues which might be very persuasive for Members, but realises he must focus on planning reasons, and believes there are grounds for refusal, if Members choose to do so.  The Heritage and Conservation Officer has acknowledged that the height, mass and positioning of the proposed extension will have an ‘overbearing and intimidating presence’, and that the loss of glimpses of Southwood Lane from Lypiatt Road will be unfortunate.  It will have considerable impact on the residents of 15,17 and 19 Southwood Lane and Carrick House.  In conclusion, the Heritage and Conservation Officer states that some aspects of the scheme are supported but not the overbearing presence on Southwood Lane of the North East elevation, and that a revised scheme to address this concern with additional landscaping on the Lypiatt Road elevation may be supported. As ward councillor, met with residents on their doorsteps and at two meetings, when the decision to permit was finely balanced.  It’s clear that this is a special area, and the building is one of Cheltenham’s architectural gems.  As such, heritage and conservation advice is particularly relevant, and Members have every reason to refuse the proposal if they wish to do so.  A walk down Southwood Lane confirms its open perspective, and the canyon-like effect of this proposal, if constructed, may technically be within limits but will change the aspect for residents completely, as well result in a degree of overlooking.  There are other issues which could be raised but will stop there.

Member debate:

PB:  we talk a lot at Council about the need to protect employment land and business and to encourage economic growth; there is currently huge emphasis on this from government and the local authority.  Cheltenham is already losing business, because the town can’t accommodate growing requirements.  This application is made by an important local employer, long-established in the town and looking to grow. Its contribution to the local economy is astronomical, but the firm will have to move from the town if it can’t grow – it will have no option.  Therefore strongly supports the officer recommendation.  It is important that as a planning authority, we support local business.  The applicant withdrew the first scheme after consultation with officers.  The current proposal is a mix of contemporary  and traditional – it is important that an important building such as this works well.  Supports the scheme from a design perspective, and from an economic point of view not against it.  Realises it will have some impact on Southwood Lane, but this is a wide lane, and there will be no significant loss of light – officers have taken this concern on board when assessing the proposal.  Urges Members, if they are concerned about economic growth in the town, to support the application.

JF:  agrees with PB – it is very important that we keep employment land.  The Heritage and Conservation officer has talked about a balancing act – that is what this is – but growth of business, economic growth, and increased employment are all very important to the town.

JP:  agrees with the previous two speakers, and considers the applicant courageous in wanting to develop this site.  It is an important site, but the proposed development sits comfortably and the exterior is pleasing.  Has some concerns about the proposed green wall, but PB is right that we need to support companies’ proposals such as this, and granting permission tonight will encourage other companies to seek similar permissions.

MS:  agrees with all that has been said, and welcomes the undercroft parking in particular.

HM:   on Planning View, a number of Members were concerned about the adjacent brick-built building which will be close to the proposed extension and could suffer from loss of light.  Officers have said these are secondary windows and have been no objections from the occupants of the building.  Planning Committee should look at all things irrespective of objections or support, and consider planning policies.  The original proposal to move the edge of the extension further back from adjacent buildings would result in an increase in height which would be more overbearing for residents.  Therefore, reluctantly supports the application.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit/grant

12 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT/GRANT