Agenda item

EB told Members that this application relates to 282 London Road, in a prominent location at Six Ways, and proposes demolition of the existing house and the erection of two 3-storey detached dwellings.  The recommendation is to refuse, for reasons set out in detail in the report:  the proposed dwellings are too tall in relation to the two dwellings next door; the large rooves are inappropriate, and with artificial slate the proposed material; and the size and position of the garage, with gable end to the road, is not considered acceptable.  

Public Speaking:

Mr Ian Allerston, Daniel Hurd Associates, agent in support

Number 282 London Road is currently a run-down house surrounded by large trees.  Two previous proposals on this site have been permitted at appeal, where the Inspector stated that the vegetation to the front of 282 London Road makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and screens the site from view, making it less prominent. These new proposals are more traditional than previous ones, with room in the roof for accommodation and a landscape buffer between the street and the houses.  The eaves height matches the existing building; the roof height is slightly higher, but okay in context.  The trees on the site are approximately 16m high, the proposed dwellings approximately 9.5m  - so they will not be visible from the highway.  The proposed materials – brick, locally-sourced stone etc – are inspired by Sixways Hall, and can be seen elsewhere in Charlton Kings and throughout the borough; they are robust and familiar, appropriate to the context, and will stand the test of time.  Regarding impact, these proposals will make little difference to the area, confirmed by the Trees Officer and the neighbours, who prefer the more traditional approach to what has previously been submitted. Charlton Kings Parish Council has praised the proposal.  To sum up, this proposal has more architectural sympathy to the site and context, and no greater impact than those schemes already approved.  Urges Members to support it.

Member debate:

MS:  agrees with what the speaker has said.  Likes the traditional style.  Heritage and Conservation comments are noted, but if the hedges are retained, especially along Ryeworth Road, the proposal will sit quite comfortably in the site.  The neighbours are happy with it.  Will support the application.

LS:  agrees with MS.  This is a derelict brownfield site, and we should be encouraging sustainable development.  The location is shielded from both London and Ryeworth Roads by existing vegetation. There are letters from four neighbours, all in support - is aware that derelict land can sometimes cause problems for local communities.

SW:  remembers Members being horrified by the original application at this site – and this proposal is not a million miles away from it.  Actually quite likes the design overall , although it has problems – doesn’t approve of the roofing material but it doesn’t make that much difference; doesn’t like the end gable of the garage but no-one will be able to see it because of the hedge.  Would like to see the hedge on Ryeworth Road retained rather than replaced, but is quite happy otherwise.

HM:  looked at the appeal decisions on the previous two applications.  It has been said that this proposal is a similar height to the previous, but it is in fact greater, and in proximity to No. 284, it will be overbearing and incongruous.  It’s true that there are other 3-storey houses along London Road, but much further along.  The Inspector talked about the high quality of the previous design, but officers do not consider the current proposal to be high quality, and the materials are not what they would expect.  The Inspector also asked for the hedges to be retained, but the applicant is proposing removal and replacement with a ‘ready hedge’.   If the hedge is to be replaced, it should be with semi-mature landscaping of similar species.  The hedge on the Ryeworth Road side is loved by local residents, the first piece of real greenery going away from town, and enjoyed by people at Six Ways.  Regarding design, cannot understand why the proposal should emulate Six Ways Hall – it wasn’t residential when first built, and the two properties cannot be seen at the same time.  Will vote against the scheme.

AM:  if looking at this proposal in isolation, there’s a good possibility that he would agree with the officers.  But an application has already been approved here; the appeal Inspector didn’t agree with the officers or Members.  The question now is, do we prefer what  we turned down previously but the Inspector liked, or turn down this?  With that choice, would have to vote for the current proposal.  It’s a crude basis on which to consider the scheme, but will support the proposal accordingly.

PB:  a case of the lesser of two evils?  The design is okay, though supports the officers’ comments regarding scale and height.  This is a very prominent location  - possibly the busiest junction in Cheltenham. A major concern is the fantastic hedge on the Ryeworth Road side – it is very impressive, mixed, and habitat to a variety of wildlife.  Whatever happens, we must ensure the amenity value of this hedge is protected.

BF:  this isn’t a great design, and as is situated in the conservation area, it should be of the highest architectural standard.  The applicant already has two approved schemes, preferable to this.  Does this scheme comply with policy thinking?  No – it is bland, to put it kindly.  Some of the designs considered tonight have been really good, but not this – it isn’t suitably high quality, and neither are the materials.  Regarding the retention of the hedge, is it part of the approval itself or a condition?  There is a difference.  Hedges can be cut down or die or be altered.   The applicant has an approved scheme, and this new proposal is being submitted purely for commercial gain.  Will not vote for this appalling design.

GB:  agrees with what PB and HM have said – is very concerned about the hedge.  It’s possible to tell how old a hedge is by the number of plant varieties it contains.  This hedge sustains a lot of wildlife, and it would be an abomination if it were to be removed.  Agrees with officers regarding the height and the roofing materials – these are not appropriate to the site.

EB, in response:

-       a note on the landscaping drawing shows the hedge on Ryeworth Road replaced by a 1.8m hedge, and also states that the existing hedge is in poor condition, with no long-term future.  There is, however, no evidence to justify this comment;

-       it is possible to condition the retention of the existing hedge;

-       the height is officers’ biggest criticism of the design and the relationship of the proposed dwellings with the houses next door.  The difference is substantial:  2m higher at ridge height, with eaves 0.4m higher;

-       of the three previous applications, two were approved at appeal, one at committee.  They represent three very different architectural approaches:  the first bold and most contemporary, but of a relevant height; the second of similar scale and also contemporary, but higher on the far side; the third a safer option, with hipped roofs.  All three are of scale and height very similar to the neighbouring properties. 

JP:  has real problems with this.  Has looked at the three previous schemes:  does not like the first two, but considers the third one better than the scheme being considered today.  On the face of it, and in isolation, it seems an interesting design, but what we’re getting isn’t what we’re seeing.  The materials are not good quality; the finish is not good quality.  It seems the applicant’s ambition is just to squeeze as many rooms into the smallest space, compromising the design in the process, the front is actually completely flat.  The height is overpowering; the wood cladding at the back of the proposed dwellings is not in keeping with this type of house.  If the proposal wasn’t in this location, might be able to support it, but in this location, cannot support it.

HM:  the NPPF tells us to look for solutions not problems; there are already three approved schemes on this site.

PB:  is annoyed that the hedge has been referred to by the applicant as having no future and no value.  It is clear that it has huge significance.  Would appreciate officer help with refusal reasons regarding this - so it is clear that the refusal includes concerns over the hedge.

AC:  thanks to the officers for showing the previous three schemes on the screen.  Is also concerned about the hedge, would prefer either of the two previous designs – at least they were different – and considers the garages unspeakable.

AM:  having now been reminded of the previously approved schemes, considers the current scheme a greater not a lesser evil.

PT:  the hedge needs a little TLC and gentle work to help it thicken up and make it a more friendly habitat for local wildlife.  Is concerned should this application be approved that there is a condition to ensure that the existing hedge is retained..  Is there a similar condition attached to the previous three approvals, depending on which one may end up being used?  It would be a great shame if there isn’t, and the applicant gets rid of the hedge.

CH:  tried to resist making any comments about the design, but considers that at least the two previous applications look like two separate properties.  These detached dwellings look like two big semi-detached properties split in two.  Dislikes this, often done because of the kudos of detached properties, even when they are right up against each other, like these.  If the same design was used for semi-detached houses, at least the proportions would be better.  These don’t look like detached properties.  The previous designs did.

EB, in response:

-       the approved schemes do not include any reference to the hedge being retained.  If Members are minded to refuse the application tonight, the unjustified loss of the hedge could be added as an extra refusal reason.

PB:  not just the unjustified loss of the hedge, but also the loss of the amenity value of the hedge.   Would like to add this if appropriate.

CL, in response:

-       understood that the officer is suggesting that, if Members want to, they can add an amendment regarding the hedge, but that officers themselves are not proposing to amend the recommendation to include this.

PB:  formally moves to amend the refusal recommendation to include this

BF:  seconded.

JW:  has no issue with the height or design of the proposal, but does have reservations about the hedge.  In view of the strong feelings expressed, would vote for permission on the basis that the hedge is retained.

MS:  Agrees if the proposal is permitted, a condition should be added to ensure that the hedge is retained. 

CL, in response:

-       the officer recommendation is to refuse, with no reference to the hedge.  PB has moved to add reference to the loss of the hedge to the refusal reason.  Members now need to vote to see if they wish to add this to the refusal reason.  If so, loss of the hedge will become part of the substantive refusal reason upon which a vote will then be taken.  If that is then lost  we will then look for an alternative motion.

BF:  would remind Members that all conditions are appealable.  If the applicant wants the hedge gone, they will appeal to remove the condition.

Vote on PB’s motion to add the loss of the hedge to the substantive refusal reason

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

Motion carried

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse, with added refusal reason regarding loss of hedge

11 in support

4 in objection

REFUSE