PLANNING APPLICATIONS THAT SPJARA HAS COMMENTED ON SINCE 2012, BEGINNING WITH THE MOST RECENT APPLICATIONS (SEE ALSO LATEST PLANNING NEWS)
October 2022 - A Listed Building in Park Place under threat
22/01682/LBC | Demolition and re-building of rear wing to form three storey living accommodation, associated alterations and construction of new access to garden from Andover Road | 38 Park Place Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2QT
Here are our comments (dated 25 October 2022).......
We wish to object to this proposal, principally on the grounds of its impact on a Listed Building.
38 Park Place is listed Grade II. As noted by Historic England, it is one of pair of very attractive Regency villas dating from between 1820 and 1830 (the street was developed by 1832). Number 38 forms a group with, and abuts, Nos 20-34 (even) and No.40 Park Place with No.8 Ashford Road.
There are three aspects of this application that concern us:
- The proposed new door at the basement level at the front will have an unacceptable impact on the Listed Building frontage. A possible compromise (adopted in one or two other houses in Park Place) is to create a garden level door under the front steps.
- The rear extension will be bulky and dominating, and will destroy the symmetry in roof shape with no. 36. We prefer the lower height, contemporary extension already built at number 36 (see Photos 13B and 20 of the photographs that form a part of the application). When permission was given for that in 2018 the Heritage Officer said "the proposed single storey rear extension sits above the level of the garden, projecting from an existing raised outdoor area. It is an uncompromisingly contemporary addition to the listed building, with a significant amount of glazing which welcomingly distinguishes it from the historic part of the building, yet it is of a scale that does not overly dominant the rear elevation". This would be a better solution to that proposed for no. 38, though it would not provide as much space.
- We consider that the aluminium garage gates are not appropriate in the curtilage of a listed building. And while one car parking place may be removed from the street, the need to keep access free means that probably two parking spaces will be lost in Andover Street, where parking is already at a premium.
PS September 2023: The offending door was removed and replaced once more by window before the final scheme was approved.
August 2023 - 1: concerns re plans for former Lloyds Bank in Bath Road to become a community church
23/01201/FUL |Change of use from bank to a community Church, including internal and external alterations |189 Bath Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL53 7LY
SPJARA have the following comments to make on this proposal:
We do not have any objection in principle to the proposed change of use and indeed welcome plans for higher levels of insulation, heat pumps and solar panels. We also think the external appearance of the former bank will be improved by the way it is planned to treat the facades on Bath Road and Suffolk Street.
However, we are concerned by these aspects:
- a few years ago, with the consent of Glos Highways, and with grant support from CBC, we planted three arbutus unedo (strawberry) trees in Suffolk Street, alongside the former bank. They have flourished and have greatly improved the street scene. Like the CBC Tree Officer, we fear for their health if a new public entrance, as proposed, is created right next to them.
- this is one reason why we would prefer the new access to be from the Bath Road. But also moving the present entrance there will bring more life to the main shopping street rather than presenting a bland front to it. Furthermore a new entrance there will create the opportunity to make use of the area between the building and the Bath Road pavement, where a landscaped entrance could be created.
- the pattern of use of the church will be different from that associated with the former bank. Fewer people will probably come on foot from nearby and more will arrive from further afield by car. Also use will be concentrated at certain times when events are taking place rather than being spread across the day. So there will be an associated additional demand for parking that will fall on local streets that are already often congested with parked vehicles. The plans should therefore be implemented alongside the promised, but delayed, expanded parking control zone in the streets around.
PS September 2023 - scheme approved but in a modified form so as to remove the threat to the trees
2: A good heritage scheme at 14 Park Place We support this application. We are pleased to see that the cast iron railings will be reinstated at the front, mounted on a Forest of Dean stone plinth and set in lead. We support the proposals for the removal of the basement level garage (which should never have been permitted in a Listed Building). We think the glass atrium at the rear will be an effective way of preserving the original features there and welcome other measures to remove later additions or modifications, including the partial reinstatement of the garden. All these changes will add to the heritage value of the building and to this part of the Conservation Area. We would though like to have seen proposals included for steps to reduce carbon emissions as part of such an ambitious plan.
3 Over-development behind 16 Upper Bath Street? Our residents' association does not cover Upper Bath Street, but we are commenting on this application as the proposed development would impact on residents living within our area (Gt. Norwood Street, Norwood Triangle and St Philip Street). In our view the planning application should be rejected on the grounds that it is out of scale and will have a negative impact on properties around.
The local planning context
While national policy supports in principle the development of unused urban land for residential purposes, individual proposals of this kind must be assessed against the local planning policies. The following local policies seem especially relevant: - policies in the Joint Core Strategy which give guidance, notably Policy SD14: "New development must 1) cause no unacceptable harm to local amenity, including the amenity of neighbouring occupants...". - policies from Cheltenham's Supplementary Planning Document on the Development of Garden and Infill Sites (2009) which lists the elements of amenity which can be threatened by inappropriate development, including "overbearing impact due to the bulk or proximity of buildings.... and a cramped site with insufficient amenity space either in absolute terms of in relation to the size of the dwelling"
Development of this back lane
At present there is no residential development backing directly onto the unnamed back access lane where it is proposed to build these two new two-storey houses. As this would be a precedent, and one which other home-owners might wish to follow, it is important to establish good design standards from the outset .The proposal
The planning proposal involves the siting of two new two-storey houses which will overlook neighbours in the three streets around. The design squeezes two houses onto a small plot, which will look bulky and out of character in this small lane. At the same time, it fails to show how the existing rather bleak frontage to Upper Bath Street might be improved or how the present building there - which is in very poor condition - might be upgraded.
Our view
A better outcome would have been a scheme to: - Entirely rebuild no. 16 Upper Bath Street to improve the appearance from the street and gain some extra space in so doing, - Design a single-storey building in the garden (several excellent precedents exist nearby, for example at nos. 1 and 104 Painswick Road, and Beechbank 55A Andover Road.
We object to this proposal as being in conflict with approved policies but hope discussions between the owners and the planning department will lead to an improved design along the above lines.
PS September 2023: The proposal has been withdrawn. A revised scheme was then submitted for a single storey house in the lane. This had our support, it was approved and has since been built.
March 2022 - good news at Hilgay House
Hilgay House in Tudor Lodge Road is a fine Regency villa. For many years, though, views of it from the street have been harmed by the damage done to one of the pillars and part of the gate at the front of the house, which had to be patched with a temporary barricade of bins and boxes. The owners have now asked for planning permission and Listed Building Consent to restore the pillar and gate. We have welcomed this with the following brief comment: This proposal has our full support. The damaged gate pillar has long been an eyesore and its proposed restoration is very welcome. We congratulate the owners and look forward to seeing the gate restored to its former glory. (PS the work has since been done and looks great)
January 2022 - A much better scheme for 99 Painswick Rd (see our comments below about previous versions).
This is what we told the Council about the new scheme (21/02784/FUL 99):
We do not object to this proposal and welcome the effort now being taken to ensure that the Arts and Crafts street frontage will be maintained: in that respect, it is a considerable improvement on earlier schemes that we objected to. We particularly welcome the proposals for making a good use of the garage, which will ensure that this attractive feature remains.
We have one concern: the bulky appearance of the new single storey north extension. It seems to us that this could be designed to relate better to the adjoining part of the existing building.
We are a little surprised that the Design and Access Statement made no mention of the fact that this is one of a group of attractive Arts and Crafts houses in Painswick Road, nor indeed does it refer to this quality in its description of the existing building.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI (retd.), FLI
on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
November 2021 - We object to the revised plans for 32/34 Grafton Road
Our letter of 30 November to planning officer reads:
Ref 32 Grafton Road, Planning Application 21/01801/FUL Thank you for drawing our attention to the revised proposals for 32 Grafton Road, which also affect no. 34. While we welcome the withdrawal of the original proposals, what we are left with is a perpetuation of the current unattractive façade to no. 32 (apart from the removal of the cheap door inserted into it) and the poor quality replacement windows to no. 34. It rather looks as if the applicant, in desperation at objections to the earlier versions of this scheme, has just said – ‘oh, well if they don’t like our new plans, let’s leave it as it is!’ But that is just not good enough. The new proposal is a missed opportunity to introduce a sympathetic contemporary design that would have sat wellalongside its neighbours on both sides and made a positive contribution to the street scene. We know you and your Heritage and Conservation colleagues are familiar with the appearance of the street façade to nos. 32 and 34, but I have copied this photo into this letter because it makes the case more clearly than any words -
We agree with the Heritage and Conservation Officer’s assessment of no. 32: “It is argued 32 Grafton Road, as a much altered 19th century building or more likely a mid-20th century building, is unnotable. It has little to no significance and arguably has a negative impact on the Central Conservation Area: Bath Road Character Area due to its scale, particularly its height, its large vehicular entrance and its poor fenestration arrangement and detailing. It is considered 32 Grafton Road should not be considered a positive building within the Central Conservation Area.”
Even if the frontages are cleaned up and the door to no 32 removed, the vast garage-like doorway will remain, as will the poor quality replacement windows in no 34.
We also note again that there is no Design and Access Statement (DAS) to accompany this application. For the reasons set out in our first set of comments, we believe that this is necessary. In asking for this, we are not engaging in a box ticking exercise for the sake of it, but because – in the words of the Government’s Planning Portal – “a DAS must explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to the development. It must also demonstrate how the proposed development’s context has influenced the design”.
The Heritage and Conservation Officer’s report comments on the absence of a Heritage Statement. That, too, is a necessary exercise that has not been undertaken.
In the absence of these two kinds of statement, there is no evidence that the heritage context or street scene have been considered by the applicant in preparing these plans. So, we wish to maintain our objection to planning proposal 21/01801/FUL on the following grounds:
the new design for no. 32 will perpetuate an ugly and intrusive street frontage that is out of keeping with the policies to protect and enhance the Central Conservation Area
it fails to restore the attractive features of no. 34, which have been removed in the recent past
the absence of DAS and a Heritage Statement is unacceptable for a site in such a sensitive location.
We ask that the Council reject this application and encourage the owners to employ an architect who can help them design a residential property that respects the historic setting of the site. We know that the Council’s resources are limited but at least they could assist by drawing up a design brief for 32 and 34 Grafton Road that would deliver a far better outcome than we have at present.
Adrian Phillips CBE, MRTPI (Rtd), FLI on behalf of St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association
May 2021: We object to replacing a front garden with off-street parking 21/00786/FUL | Alterations to frontage to create new vehicular access and parking, and installation of railings | 50 Painswick Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2ER) Comments by the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
Summary of our comments We object to this proposal on the following grounds: - it is inconsistent with planning policy and guidance, and - the case for new off-street parking is not made. However, if the Council are minded to approve, we ask that the conditions be imposed relating to planting, the existing tree and the surface used. Introduction It is regrettable that this is yet another proposal to replace the front gardens in this part of Painswick Road with hard standing for off-road parking. Number 50 is one in a group of four listed buildings - in Italianate style not 'Regency Gothic' as referred to in the Design and Access Statement- which together form an attractive feature, the more so where the front gardens are intact. All of this of course is within the Central Conservation Area. We ask three questions: 1. is this application consistent with local planning policy? 2. is a convincing case made for off road parking? 3. and, if there is a case, Is the design acceptable? 1: Is this application consistent with local planning policy? Policy BE7 from the Cheltenham 2006 Development Plan says: "POLICY BE 7 PARKING ON FORECOURTS OR FRONT GARDENS IN CONSERVATION AREAS (Objective O11) Development which introduces or extends the parking of vehicles on forecourts or front gardens of buildings in conservation areas will not be permitted". This policy has been superseded by the adoption of the Cheltenham Plan in 2020 but CBC comments thus: "Whilst existing saved policies .... SPGs/SPDs remain the starting point for decision making, the amount of weight that these policies have will vary and, in the most part, will reduce over time. We must produce new, up-to-date plans based on objectively assessed evidence to make sure that development in Cheltenham is 'plan-led' rather than 'appeal-led". We have also looked at The Parks Character Area Appraisal and Management Plan of July 2008. It lists under 'Negative Factors': Many front gardens have been adapted either totally or partially into hard-standing areas for cars. This change has reduced the area of green and soft landscaped private gardens, and generally increased the hard urban appearance of the Park character area. It has resulted in a negative impact on the appearance of the area. However, where properties have retained their front gardens, there has been a continuing enhancement to the street scene. Under the Management Section of the same document is this comment: 4 Drives and loss of front gardens Very often the frontage of buildings in conservation areas is essential to the character of the conservation area. Historically, many buildings in the character area had front gardens with enclosing low railings, hedges or walls. Their gardens would be planted. The loss of front gardens to parking detracts from the historic setting. This can result from the nature of the materials used, and cause a reduction in biodiversity and "wildlife corridors". The loss of front gardens in this manner is also an unsustainable form of development - increasing run off, reducing planting available for carbon fixing and encouraging car use. Where it is considered acceptable the use of brick or gravel instead of tarmac, with the retention of some garden space and the use of appropriate boundary treatments would reduce run-off, offer a more attractive setting for buildings and give a more sustainable approach than some current practice. Conclusion: Even if policy BE 7 is no longer a strict requirement pending new policy development, the thrust of CBC advice is clear: the loss of front gardens to parking is to be strongly discouraged. 2: Is there a case for off road parking? The inconvenience of on-street parking for the occupants of no. 50 is recognised. However:
1: The house backs on to a quiet access road, Brandon Terrace Lane. The Design and Access Statement describes this as underlit, narrow and poorly surfaced, but it is perfectly usable by cars seeking access for parking to adjoining properties. Like some of its neighbours, no. 50 already has a garage there, where an e-vehicle charging point could be installed. The back of no. 50 Painswick Road in Brandon Terrace Lane - the property boundary is shown in white. 2: Gloucestershire County Council are expected to consult soon on a residents' parking scheme that will include this part of Painswick Road. This should greatly reduce the inconvenience of commuter parking in the streets and thereby make it easier for owners, or their visitors, to park on the street. 3: the applicants argue that there will be net reduction of on-street car parking of two but this is false accounting as the section of road giving access to the proposed off-street parking will need to be left clear of parked vehicles. Conclusion We consider that the case for converting the front garden to hard standing has not been made and that the application should therefore be refused. 3: If the Council are minded to approve, is the design acceptable? We recognise that there are precedents in that new off-street parking has been permitted nearby. If therefore the Council is minded to approve the application, despite our objections on the above grounds, the following conditions should apply: - a yew hedge should be planted behind the new railing as neighbours have done - the existing tree in the front garden should be preserved - the surface must be permeable, with gravel using local stone.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI on behalf of SPJARA 28 May 2021 Revised plans for 102 Painswick Road We commented a year ago on the original application (20/00583/FUL)- see below on this page. This revised scheme is broadly similar but we commented thus:
"We noted the conditions that the council applied in giving permission to the previous scheme and especially Condition 10 concerning landscaping and planting, and Condition 11 re tree protection. We ask that you ensure that these same conditions are also attached to any consent you may give to the revised plan.
In respect of the revised application, we welcome two changes to the approved plan: adding a 6kW solar array to one roof and making the other roof a green (sedum) roof."
Adrian Phillips MRTPI (Retd), FLI - on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association" We have used the opportunity given by a current planning application to see if we can persuade the Council to help save a little area of wild vegetation beside Norwood Road, see below ....
November 2020: Can we save the little wildlife oasis off Norwood Road? 20/01831/FUL | Creation of separate basement flat within existing dwelling | 7 Suffolk Street Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2DH
These comments are sent on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association (SPJARA).
We have no objection to this proposal and indeed welcome the fact this conspicuous, end-of-terrace building, which has been a neglected eyesore, is now being restored and cared for. However, the sub-division through the creation of a separate ground floor flat strikes us as unnecessary as the whole house would make a reasonable family home with access to its own garden.
We wish though to flag up a matter of concern. To the immediate west of the house and its garden, and separated from it be an alleyway, is a small triangular area of land which we understand also belongs to the owner of no. 7. No plans for it are submitted with this application but we have heard that he is considering using it for car parking. This area has grown wild and has become a haven for wildlife – nothing spectacular of course, but common birds that are now in decline elsewhere, like sparrows, blackbirds and various tits. The Russian vine and buddleia are much visited by bees and other pollinators. Just because it has been the subject of benign neglect, it has developed a modest wildlife value that is rare in the centre of our town. A number of residents have commented on the pleasure they get from seeing this wild area and hearing the birds in it.
Our residents’ group have taken in hand several other areas of neglected land and managed them for community benefit. If this plot of land were to become available, we believe there would be local support to manage it as a small piece of wild nature.
We accept that the owner has a complete right to seek to develop the area for parking or other purposes, but to do so he would of course require planning consent. Our request is that the local planning authority should advise him that he does not need to clear the land prior to making an application. Should he decide to submit a proposal in due course, it can be determined it on its own merits and the existence of the vegetation there will not prejudice his case. But if the applicant's plans fail to secure approval, the way would then be open for us to discuss with him an alternative use of the land, which might be more beneficial to the community.
STOP PRESS Spring 2021 - the owner responded to our message above and we have been in friendly discussions with him about how we might manage the triangle in order to keep vegetation away from the pavement. While there can be no long term guarantee over the future of this area, he has no immediate plans to do anything with it, so - in the short term at least - the sparrows seem to be safe.
October 2020: We comment on the revised plans for outside Pip and Jim's church
Planning Application 20/01879/FUL | Improvement to the grounds of St Phillips and St James Church (revised application to 17/00779/FUL) | St Phillips And St James Church Grafton Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2DD
Comments by the St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association (SPJARA)
We are the local residents’ association for the streets around St Philip and St James’s Church (for more detail, see www.spjara.org.uk).
The following comments are made on behalf of SPJARA having been agreed by the committee.
Please note that we commented on the previous application in 2017.
--------------------------------------------
Most of the elements of the earlier scheme – which we broadly supported – have been retained. However, some relatively minor changes will certainly affect the area’s appearance:
- revised planting plans - different, less varied surfacing in places - the removal of seating - ‘art’ elements removed - tarmac instead of blocked paving in Brandon Terrace Lane
We understand that these changes have been introduced to reduce costs and appreciate the necessity for this. In fact, a slightly simpler, less fussy design is in line with one of our own comments on the original scheme. However, the effect may now be less of a ‘plaza’ and more of a car park.
There are two aspects of the revised scheme which we consider unsatisfactory:
Surfacing of Brandon Terrace Lane
In the original, the surfacing was to be in concrete Tegula-style setts. All that remains of that surface will be immediately in front of the west door of the church. Using tarmac elsewhere between the plaza and the church will give the impression that this is a “normal” road crossed by a pedestrian access route to the church. In fact, Brandon Terrace Lane is a quiet “back lane”, most of it not made-up at all. We do not want the road surface to attract drivers using this as a short cut round the limited access to Painswick Road from Grafton Road. If setts are too expensive to use, then we would ask that other options (e.g. gravel, resin bonding or gravel rolled into tar) be used instead, which will lead more naturally to the gravel and partially grassed lane to the north. Whatever surface is used, it should be porous to reduce run off.
Trees In our comments on the previous application, we argued for an additional tree to be planted beside the entrance of Grafton Road. We said:
“We are disappointed that the scheme did not pick up the existing avenue effect of Grafton Road as something that should be respected and replicated …… Surprisingly, the design analysis makes no mention of it.
We think that the existence of this avenue makes a strong case for the planting of two new trees beside Grafton Road. These should be planted on either side of the entrance, not just one as proposed to the right, and for both trees to be seen as a contribution to the avenue of street trees.
The one tree proposed is described thus: “A new fastigiate Tulip tree as a feature by the corner of Brandon Lane to frame the view of the church from Grafton Road and provide seasonal interest - without growing wide enough to obscure the view or foul the road”. The second tree should be the same”
The Council’s own local character study of this area[1] says:
“There is a strong presence of mature tree-lined streets throughout the character area, particularly evident around The Park and along Painswick Road, Moorend Park Road, Gratton Road, Grafton Road and Shurdington Road……. Along with enhancing character and appearance, trees perform another important function in screening properties from public space, acting as a ‘soft’ boundary treatment, establishing enclosure and privacy”.
We were therefore disappointed that the council did not respond to our suggestion when it gave approval to the first application. As the scheme will now appear rather more as a car park than a public space, the case for an additional tree to reduce the effect of hard surfacing is all the greater. We ask that the council require that it be planted as a condition of approval. We understand that the applicants would agree to this suggestion and we have offered to contribute to the costs of buying an additional tree.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI (retd), FLI 13 November 2020
[1] Central Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plans, no.9: The Park, page 25, para. 5.35
April 2020 - we like the new house proposed for 102 Painswick Road This is what we told the Council:
20/00583/FUL | Erection of a single storey dwelling with soft and hard landscaping and other associated works. | Dolder House 102 Painswick Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2EY Comments from the St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association
General comments In considering this proposal, we have first addressed these questions: • Is the current plot large enough to support a second home? • Will the new modern design of the proposed single storey building clash with the arts and crafts style properties nearby and the character of Painswick Road and this part of the Central Conservation Area? • Will any attractive trees be felled? • Does this house meet the new standards for energy conservation, biodiversity protection that the Council itself has set?
We consider the plot is large enough to accommodate a small house without damage to the character of the area, especially as the house will be largely hidden by the existing wall to Painswick Road and Shurdington Road. Its retention will be key to making sure the new house has a minimal impact. However, we note that the applicants’ architects have been given informal pre-application advice to reduce the footprint of the new building to minimise the loss of garden space. The architects have responded with a very modest modification (reducing the footprint from 138m2 to 132m2). (In making this and the following comment, we are aware of the planning policies that apply here). Generally, we feel the new house will not detract from the quality of the existing Arts and Crafts house at no. 102, nor from that of five others of similar style nearby, as it will be of low-key, discreet appearance and only partly visible from the street. Nor do we think it will adversely affect Painswick Road and this part of the Central Conservation Area. We appreciate the need to fell the remaining large leylandii overlooking Shurdington Road. Though this will lead to noticeable loss of trees in the street scene in the short term, these trees are of little value in biodiversity terms. There is a good tree survey and planting scheme among the plans, which should be adhered to. There are suggestions (they need strengthening) that the design will be energy efficient, may use air source heating and will incorporate a sedum roof. It is essential that it meets standards that match the Council’s commitment to zero net carbon by 2030. Hard standing should be permeable to reduce run off. Comparison with recent planning applications affecting 99 Painswick Road Eighteen months ago, we strongly objected to the initial plans for building a new house in the garden of 99 Painswick Road (18/02038/FUL). Because there appears to be some similarity between that case and 102 Painswick Road, we have considered how they compare and how to ensure that we are consistent in our comments. As was the case with 99, this proposal is for a new building in part of the garden of a house that forms one of a group of six, all built in attractive Arts and Craft style in the 1920s, and all with ample-sized gardens (though 102 is of a more conventionally inter-war style than numbers 97 and 99). The whole of Painswick Road is within the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area and the Park Character area (covered by a Character Appraisal and Management Plan, July 2008). In respect of the first proposal for no. 99, we objected to the new development proposed in the garden of that house on several grounds: 1. The design of the proposed new building would be out of keeping with the quality of this part of the Conservation Area. 2. Construction would involve the loss of a large part of the garden, which contributes to the character of the area. 3. Permission for the development in a garden would set a precedent that would threaten similar gardens nearby 4. The building would intrude on the privacy of the neighbours. 5. The proposal would conflict with policies in the Conservation Area Management Plan and the Cheltenham Local Plan. We have compiled a table to show how the two proposals compare:
Grounds for objection 99 Painswick Road 102 Painswick Road
Design (first design)
99:Very poor, intrusive scheme for a three- or four-storey building 102: Good design for a single storey house
Loss of garden
99: Considerable and largely visible 102: Considerable but not very visible and little public impact
Precedent
99: Sets precedent 102: Sets precedent, though less markedly so
Impacts neighbours
99: Considerable impact 102: Minimal impact
Conflicts with planning policies on i) respecting local character, and ii) loss of gardens and subdivision
99: Clear conflict and very visible 102:Some conflict but not visible
Summary of SPJARA’s views • We do not object in principle to this development. • We consider that the circumstances here differ greatly from those that arose in connections with the first application relating to no. 99. • The planning authority should require that the new house should be built: o to the highest standards (Passivhaus if possible) in terms of energy conservation and use of renewable energy, in line with Council’s own declared policy to be net carbon neutral by 2030, o with a green roof planted and managed to maximise biodiversity gain, o with permeable surfaces around it so as to minimise rainwater run-off. • The implementation of the tree planting and root protection plans should be a condition of consent. • The architect could go further in responding to the planner’s legitimate request to reduce the footprint of the new building. • The retention and maintenance of the boundary wall to Painswick and Shurdington Roads should be an explicit condition of approval. Adrian Phillips MRTPI (rtd), FLI on behalf of SPJARA - 17 April 2020
Update June 2020: The plans were approved with conditions relating to the wall, the trees and root protection as we had recommended.
October 2018: SPJARA objects to two planning applications affecting no. 99 Painswick Road
Stop press 3.3.19 - both these applications were withdrawn just before Christmas. A new application has now been submitted - 19/00304/FUL Erection of two and single storey side and rear extensions and various external alterations to the existing building. SPJARA's comments will be posted soon
These objections relate to a proposed remodelling of the house and a new house in the garden - for details see below
18/02037/FUL | Various single, first floor and two storey extensions with internal and external alterations including alterations to roof | 99 Painswick Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2EX Comments from the St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association Context The whole of Painswick Road is within the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area and the Park Character area (covered by a Character Appraisal and Management Plan, July 2008). This application must be determined with the policy implications that follow in mind. Painswick Road is characterised by its attractive collection of detached villas and short terraces, built at widely different times and in very different styles; and lots of garden trees. It is among the most attractive and architecturally varied residential streets in Cheltenham. This proposal affects an Arts and Craft style house. It is one of a group of six such houses built in the 1920s at the south end of Painswick Road in this attractive style. Number 99 has retained many of its original external features, such as timbering on the gable facade, a pantile roof, steel Crittall windows and cast iron rainwater goods. Doubtless there are internal features of the period too. There is also a garage of the same date – more attractive than most such structures. Several of the other houses in this group have been carefully adapted – and even extended – to meet contemporary needs in recent years. All the owners have done this while respecting the architectural quality and character of their houses and of the group. Their improvements are fully in keeping with the character of this part of the Conservation Area. Description The Design and Access Statement does not recognise at all the special architectural character of this house, yet proposes extensive alterations to it. The application describes a number of proposed internal improvements and an extension to the rear. These are not in principle contentious but would no doubt damage or destroy any surviving internal features from the original building (e.g. tiled and wooden floors, fireplaces and staircases). But the proposal also envisages creating a radically different external appearance in which none of the present character would survive. Thus the pantile roof would be replaced with a zinc one, the existing Crittall windows would be replaced with “powder coated aluminium glazing” and the walls re-rendered and partially clad with painted timbers – and so on. The cover of the Design and Access Statement shows a car port in front of the redesigned house. This wholly new structure, along with an area of hard standing, would replace the existing garden. This is described oddly as “part of the landscaping philosophy at the front”. Our objection We object to this development on these four grounds: 1) It will destroy the attractive appearance of the existing house and replace it with an inappropriate design for this location The destruction of the external appearance of the existing house would be a real loss to this part of Cheltenham. It is not an architectural masterpiece but it is a pleasing design, nicely proportioned and typical of the best of its time, as a glance at the drawing by AD Horner (part of the submission) shows. The plan also envisages an intrusive new car port and access area that would destroy much of the front garden, come forward from the building line and be very visible from the road. 2) It will disrupt the character of this group of Arts and Craft houses The new building would be completely alien amongst the surviving group of Arts and Crats houses, detracting from them. 3) It is in conflict with the relevant policies in the Conservation Area Management Plan for this area; and the relevant Cheltenham Local Plan policy. Our objections are borne out by the Cheltenham Local Plan Policy CP7 (and D1 in the new draft local plan), which says that:
“Development will only be permitted where it … (c) complements and respects neighbouring development and the character of the locality and/or landscape
and:
“Extensions or alterations of existing buildings will be required to avoid: (d) causing harm to the architectural integrity of the building or group of buildings”. This policy is also referred to in the Park Character Appraisal and Management Plan. In our view, the plans for this property neither complement nor respect the existing neighbouring development; and they will cause harm to the integrity both of an individual building and that of a group of buildings. 4) It could set a dangerous precedent for other planning applications in the area We also fear that a successful application for number 99 would trigger similar unsympathetic proposals affecting other houses in this street, so further undermining the aims of the Conservation Area. --------------------- While we will comment separately on a related application to build in the garden of number 99 (18/020238/FUL), the two proposals together will have an even more destructive impact on the character of this part of the Conservation Area. We therefore request the Council to reject this application. October 2018: Comments sent on an application affecting the lane off Ashford Road and behind Mercia Court
NB November 2018: permission given
February 2021: Two new applications, one we support and one we oppose ...
5 Painswick Road 21/00267/FUL: Extension and minor alterations to listed building
We said: " The St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association support this application. It is a sensitive proposal affecting a listed building that will remove some ugly additions, restore period features and at the same time meet the owner's need for garaging and internal remodelling . The documentation is very professional."
Cleevely Motors Ltd Andover Street 21/00287/FUL: Change of use from garage workshop to a two bed townhouse with integral garage (revised application to previously approved scheme
We said: "I am writing on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association.
This is a revised scheme. We were critical of the poor design of the previous version.
We appreciate that - as the council has agreed to this development in principle - there is little that can now be done to improve matters. But we consider this scheme will not be an asset in a conservation area. In particular, the details of the street elevation - i.e. the entrance to the property - look poor and will give a cheap appearance. The documentation is very un-professional."
March, April and July 2020: Approval given for proposed extension in Tryes Road
We objected to the revised scheme but it was approved by the Planning Committee on 20 August 2020
Original scheme
20/00326/FUL, affectingMendip, Tryes Road Cheltenham (Proposed first floor rear extension, single storey side extension and alterations including new garden wall, replacement windows and re-rendering):
We commented thus:
We are concerned that the proposed two storey extension at the rear of the building will have a considerable impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the immediate neighbours in Tryes Road and Painswick Road. In particular it will dominate views, overshadow gardens and reduce sunlight. A more modest scheme would be acceptable.
Revised scheme
The scheme was since amended but we maintained our objections with these comments sent on 16 April 2020:
I understand that you will be taking a decision on this application, possibly tomorrow as indicated by the website deadline.
The St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association (SPJARA) objected to the original scheme and we wish to maintain our objection to the revised scheme though we are aware of the officer's recommendations to approve it.
In our original comments we said: "We are concerned that the proposed two storey extension at the rear of the building will have a considerable impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the immediate neighbours in Tryes Road and Painswick Road. In particular it will dominate views, overshadow gardens and reduce sunlight. A more modest scheme would be acceptable"
The revised scheme does slightly reduce the impact of the extension on the immediate neighbours in Tryes Road, though we understand that they still feel the new build will have an overpowering impact on them: their living room and patio will still be much affected by loss of light and overshadowing and their garden by a loss of privacy. Furthermore, the alteration to the original proposals do nothing to reduce the impact on neighbours equally affected in 88 Painswick Road. For these reasons we are objecting to this new scheme too.
We note too from the areal photographs that the proposed extension is not matched by similar extensions along Tryes Road to the east.
We understand that during the current lockdown, council planners may not be able to hold meetings in person of the planning committee to consider cases like this. Given the opposition of affected neighbours and of ourselves to this application, and also the practical difficulties of arranging site visits during the lockdown, we feel that officers should either refuse this application or seek an extension with the agreement of the applicants until such time as the committee can meet to consider it. This is indicated as a possible approach in the DCLG advice of March 2020 on COVID-19 and planning permissions:
We recognise that there may be circumstances where a local planning authority is unable to consider a permitted development prior approval application within the deemed consent period. It remains important to prioritise these so important economic activity can continue. In these exceptional circumstances the authority can, if necessary, seek to agree an extended approval date with the applicant. Where agreement cannot be reached an authority may need to consider whether prior approval is refused if the application cannot be considered with the requisite attention.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI (rtd), FLI on behalf of SPJARA
the scheme was then further amended (FUL 20/01004) - these are our latest comments submitted on 14 July 2020:
We have examined the new scheme. We recognise that there have been some changes that will marginally reduce the impact of the new build on the immediate neighbours but we do not consider that this is sufficient to justify our withdrawing our previous objections. We also consider that the resulting design solution is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing or suitable as an addition in a conservation area.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI (rtd), FLI on behalf of SPJARA 18/01940/FUL Garages Rear Of Mercian Court Park Place Cheltenham
This site has been the subject of several planning applications, including one that was permitted in October 2017 (see below) but not taken up. The latest is for three new small properties. Our comments submitted on 18 October 2018 were as follows:
These comments are made on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
We welcome the arrival of a Cheltenham-based architectural practice with a high reputation for designing good quality, small scale infill schemes of kind. This scheme looks likely to make a more positive contribution to the urban scene than its predecessors.
We have two questions of detail, which we hope can be resolved before approval is given, as they concern some of our members who live nearby.
Privacy:
The latest design includes a proposal for first floor balconies, some of which will look directly into the kitchen, rear bedrooms and garden of neighbouring property. Also some recent cottages built in the same lane were required to install frosted glass to protect neighbours' privacy. How will neighbours' privacy be protected in this instance?
Parking:
The proposed new homes are small. It seems to us likely that some owners will wish to convert their garages to residential accommodation to add more space. Planning permission is not usually required to convert a garage into additional living space, providing the work is internal and does not involve enlarging the building (as would be the case here). However, we understand that a condition can be attached to a planning permission to require that the garage remain as a parking space.
We would ask the Council to consider imposing such a condition. Otherwise the loss of garages will add to the parking pressures in the lane and adjoining streets. We expressed concerns about the design of the previous proposal for this site. Planning permission was refused by CBC and rejected on appeal for the same reasons. We consider that the current proposal is a substantial improvement on the original design and addresses the points we made in our comments.
July 2018: we comment on Ashford Court Cottage, 4a Ashford Road
Despite our objections, see below, this scheme was given planning permission on 21 September.
T18/01326/FUL: there is a back history - see archived section. These comments were submitted on 30 July. We objected to the previous proposal (13/00309 FUL) for Ashford Court Cottage in 2013 on the grounds that a two storey structure was inappropriate for such a cramped site and that it would overlook neighbouring properties. We considered that the building would be: "too large for this small site; very intrusive on the amenities of those living around it in the streets around (Park Place, Andover Walk and Ashford Road); and an inappropriate development in a Conservation Area".
Sadly our objections did not prevail and the scheme was permitted.
Now that it has been resubmitted, with only modest changes, we wish to object again.
While we maintain our objections for the reasons set out in our comments five years ago, we realise that permission can only be reasonably withheld now if conditions have materially changed since the original application was considered. We believe that this is the case since the council has recently granted permission to build two two-storey houses alongside this site in Andover Walk (18/01011/FUL). At the time when this case was being considered the original permission given for Ashford Court Cottage in 2013 had lapsed (in 2016). So the assumption in the Andover Walk application and permission must have been that the existing bungalow at Ashford Court Cottage would remain.
We are aware of the concerns of several neighbours who adjoin the site. Like them we consider that the building would interfere unacceptably with their privacy by overlooking them and reducing their access to light and sunlight. But to approve now a new two storey structure at Ashford Court Cottage would also mean a direct intrusion on the privacy of the two recently approved two-storey buildings in Andover Walk. We note too that the elevations that form part of the application for Ashford Court Cottage show a bungalow in Andover Walk, not the new buildings as recently approved by the Council.
So we repeat our earlier objections to the proposal for a two storey building on this site, and believe that if allowed it would also seriously intrude upon the adjoining newly approved properties in Andover Walk. We therefore ask the Council to refuse planning permission.
In 2013, we said that we would however have supported a scheme to replace the existing bungalow with a contemporary, single storey structure built to high environmental standards. That remains our view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18/02038/FUL | Erection of new dwelling (three storeys over basement) adjacent to existing house | 99 Painswick Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2EX
Comments from the St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association (MUST be submitted by 2 November) Context The whole of Painswick Road is within the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area and the Park Character area (covered by a Character Appraisal and Management Plan, July 2008). This application must be determined with the policy implications that follow in mind. Painswick Road is characterised by its attractive collection of detached villas and short terraces, built at widely different times and in very different styles; many houses have large gardens and contain lots of garden trees. Attractive houses, numerous trees and large gardens combine to make this one of the most appealing and architecturally varied residential streets in Cheltenham. This proposal is for a new building in part of the garden of a house that forms one of a group of six, all built in attractive Arts and Craft style in the 1920s, and all with ample-sized gardens. It involves the demolition of a garage: few garages are worth a second look but this one is part of the Arts and Craft scheme and an attractive structure in its own right. Description The proposed building is in fact a four storey structure, albeit one of them being underground. It will be set well back from the street and the building line. It is described in the Design and Access Statement as being “located in the space left following demolition of the garage” – in fact it will occupy a far larger area. It will also require the destruction of a large part of the garden to no. 99 and the removal of some trees (it is hard to assess how many). Our objection We object to this development on five grounds: 1. The design of the proposed new building is out of keeping with the quality of this part of the Conservation Area. It will intrude into the attractive group of Arts and Craft houses, will be completely alien amongst them and detract from their character. 2. Construction would involve the loss of a large part of the garden, which contributes to the character of the area. 3. Permission for the development in a garden would set a precedent that would threaten similar gardens nearby. If approval were to be given, it would be seen as a green light for further opportunistic acquisition of properties in the area with a view to their subdivision for back garden development, thus undermining the aims of the Conservation Area. 4. The building will intrude on the privacy of the neighbours living behind and beside it. Its construction will involve major excavations, which will cause serious inconvenience to them. 5. The proposal is in conflict with two relevant policies in the Conservation Area Management Plan and the Cheltenham Local Plan (to neither of which reference is made in the application):
i) Cheltenham Local Plan Policy CP7 (and D1 in the new draft local plan) says that:
“Development will only be permitted where it … (c) complements and respects neighbouring development and the character of the locality and/or landscape
Clearly the proposal does not complement in any way the neighbouring houses. Indeed it will diminish their setting and the character of this part of Painswick Road.
ii)Cheltenham Local Plan Policy GE2 (HE1 in the 2018 draft plan) says that
“The development of private green areas, open space and gardens which make a significant townscape or environmental contribution will not be permitted”
This policy is also referred to in the Park Character Appraisal and Management Plan. It is clearly relevant to determining this application. In our view, the plans for this new property directly contravene both the above polices --------------------------------------- While we will comment separately on a related application to make major alterations to no. 99 (18/02037/FUL). The two proposals together will have an even more destructive impact on the character of this part of the Conservation Area. We therefore request the Council to reject this application.
JUNE 2018: SPJARA commented on two planning applications affecting Painswick Road:
- Redesign of 42 Painswick Road
These comments were submitted on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association on 10 June 2018 in connection with Planning Application 18/00991/FUL
We welcome the plan to replace the current bricks with white-painted render, which will improve the appearance of no. 42. We have no objections in principle to the erection of a garage on Brandon Terrace. We recognise too that the Council has not raised concerns regarding the removal of trees at the front of the house (the subject of an earlier, separate application). Nonetheless, bearing in mind the appearance of Painswick Road as a leafy, residential street lined by attractive houses of various dates, and the location of the house within a Conservation Area, we have two concerns about the view from the street: - With the removal of the two cypress trees, there are no trees left in the front garden which can contribute to the street scene. We ask that a condition of permission be the planting of two new trees (species to be decided in discussion with the Cheltenham tree officer). This would be in addition to the proposals, which we support, to replace the existing wall with railings in front of a newly planted hedge. - The front garden will be largely given over to a drive and hard standing. It looks as if there will be four times as much hard surface as at present. This will create a harsher appearance – and we are not clear why such a large a hard standing area is needed as well as a garage at the rear. Also such an extensive area of new hard standing will add to the run off into the adjoining street (unless a porous surface is used). The design of the garage is somewhat utilitarian. We suggest that the bricks used in this construction should match those in the adjoining walls and not be cheap, Fletton-type bricks. Why not reuse the brick in the wall that will have to be demolished? NB: this was a requirement for the redesign of the area in front of St Philip and St James church, also in Brandon Terrace.
Postcript: Planning permission was subsequently given for the proposal very much as submitted. We regret that no conditions were placed regarding the need to plant new trees in front of the house as we had requested.
- Redevelopment at 1 Painswick Road
Permission for a modified scheme for a building of one storey only was given subequently
These comments were submitted on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association on 5 June 2018 in connection with Planning Application 18/00932/FUL:
The proposal to replace the existing single storey house on the corner of Painswick Road and Suffolk Road is basically acceptable and does not create any major problems for the rest of the area. Although the new building will be somewhat more intrusive, because part of it will be two storeys high, its design seems to relate well to the adjoining terrace of Listed Buildings and would fit this awkward corner site well.
We have one major comment:
External walls: The Design and Access statement says "The general approach to the design of the external appearance has been based upon simplicity giving due regard to proportion of and position of openings within a robust but 'in keeping' brick skin". We are not clear what this means, but presumably it is intended that the building will be brick-built, as is the present single-storey structure. However, as the new building will be higher it will be more visible and a more visible brick structure would be out of keeping with the materials used in neighbouring buildings: the terrace to the south of the building (mainly stone with a rendered extension); the building across the road, the Dentist's surgery (stucco); and the adjoining Regency house in Suffolk Road (stone). We suggest that the new building should either be covered in stone or - more realistically - rendered and painted a pale shade; at very least the first storey studio should be rendered and painted.
We also have four more detailed comments:
Outbuildings: at present there are some sheds between the existing single storey-structure and 3 Painswick Road. These are unattractive and should be removed as part of the new scheme (as shown in the plan).
Wall at the north end: this should be retained. Its curving shape fits well, taking the eye round the corner in Painswick Road where it adjoins Suffolk Road (also as shown in the plan).
New entrance in Painswick Road: this makes a better access for the new building than the present one, but it is important that it be built as an iron gate to match the adjoining iron railing (again as shown in the plan).
Green Roofs: we welcome the proposals for green roofs on the new buildings, but these will need to be maintained if they are remain in good condition over the years. Though this is outside the scope of a planning permission, we would encourage the owners of 1 Painswick Road to make an informal agreement with the owners of the adjoining home, 3 Painswick Road (which will overlook the green roof) to commit to an ongoing programme of maintenance covering such aspects as: - spot weeding of invasive weeds - re-seeding of bare patches - slow release organic fertilizer - inspection and clearance of drainage channels.
Postcript: Planning permission was subsequently given for the proposal after the applicant had agreed to remove the two storey element. The officer's report notes our comments and adds "The existing brick boundary wall and iron railings will be retained which will reduce the impact on the wider area and allow the new dwelling to sit relatively quietly in its surroundings". April and May 2018: New Development in Andover Walk The following comments were made on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association in connection with planning application no 18/00410/FUL. This is an application for the demolition of all buildings on site and erection of three two-storey dwellings (The Bungalow Andover Walk Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2QY).
We consider that the erection of these three new townhouses in place of the existing bungalow and garage is acceptable in principle. The bungalow is of no special architectural merit and the proposal will have the net effect of adding two much-needed new homes.
We note that no provision is made for off-street parking. However, this is in a control zone and there are usually free spaces in the street for parking. In our view, the on-street provision for car parking is acceptable.
We consider the contemporary design proposed for this short terrace is appropriate, and agree that the houses will look more suitable for a mews setting if they are brought forward to the street line as planned. While the drawings shown here are not particularly exciting, neither are they intrusive. The choice of materials will be critical.
We note the potential impact of this proposal on the recently approved two storey building behind it (in fact we commented on that scheme that we thought a two storey structure there was wrong). It seems that the applicant of the current scheme recognises that this new development could impact on the neighbouring building and has taken appropriate measures (e.g. in the respect of the positioning of windows) to avoid this. The planning authority will need to check that this is so and require adjustments if there is any doubt.
Postscript - the Council refused the application for three buildings and the applicant subsequently submitted a revised scheme for two dwellings only. This revised application was approved - but this has implications for a new proposal for Ashford Court Cottage (see above)
August 2017: Silver Birch tree saved in Painswick Road! On the 2nd August 2017, SPJARA objected to a proposal to fell a large silver birch in the front garden of 69 Painswick Road. We submitted this:
"This tree is a perfectly healthy example of a Birch tree approaching maturity. It is our view that a tree of this stature makes an important contribution to the local street scene and thus is of public benefit (as well benefiting the wildlife associated with it). Whilst the tree does grow at an angle, we have been advised that this does not mean that it is any more likely to fall than a tree of similar size growing vertically. We see no valid reason to justify felling as the application requests. We are also concerned that if this application is approved it could then be used as a precedent for other applications to fell large and healthy trees in our area. We ask that the tree should be made subject to a Tree Preservation Order."
On 18th August, we were pleased to learn that the Council took SPJARA's advice and has placed a Tree Preservation Order (a TPO) on the tree in question.
October 2017: Comments sent in on an application affecting Suffolk Street
17/01760/OUT – 14 Suffolk Street - Erection of 5 apartments (renewal of previous planning permissions) We appreciate that this is the second renewal of a planning permission and therefore that the scope for the council to impose new conditions is limited. Nonetheless we wish to reiterate the concern we expressed previously about the lack of any parking provision in association with this proposals to create 5 new dwellings. As we noted on the previous application, the creation of a new parking control zone just to the north has led to a greatly increased demand for on-street parking in the vicinity. To add more homes without any parking provision can only exacerbate the problem.
Our other concern relates to the design. The view from the north (i.e. from near Lloyds Bank) shows that the larger, 3-storey part of the new building will adjoin and overshadow the house immediately to the west, whilst the lower, 2-storey section will adjoin the back of higher buildings in Bath Road. If the design were reversed, so that the smaller, 2-storey part of the structure were positioned at the west and the larger section at the east, the relationship to other buildings in Suffolk Street would be far more satisfactory. We suspect that the developers cannot at this stage be required to alter their plans in this way but if they chose to do so, they would carry our support.
17/01813/FUL- off Ashford Road - Demolition of 12no. lock-up garages and erection of 2no. 2 bedroom dwellings with private gardens and 2no. parking spaces (one per dwelling)
Post script - Off Ashford Road development Revised scheme: Permitted on 15 December 2017 (but see above)
The developer’s second scheme, which we said met our objections to version 1, was considered by the planners to be better but still a weak design. As a result the developer produced version 3, in contemporary style. This is what the Council said about it in their decision on this: In its revised form, the dwellings continue to adopt a similar footprint, but are largely flat roofed with a pitched zinc clad element to the rear. The building will be faced in brick, with a recessed central element which is also to be clad in zinc; this recess provides some relief to the principal elevation and improves the overall proportions of the building. The introduction of the flat roof, and pitched element to rear has also sufficiently addressed concerns in relation to the height of the building. The close boarded fence to the front of the site adjacent to the lane has been replaced by a brick wall with timber gates for access. Overall, officers consider that the contemporary approach now adopted, subject to a high standard of detailed design, will result in a building which will sit more comfortably in its surroundings, and provide for an enhancement within the conservation area. The detailed design and finish of the dwellings, such as the external facing and roofing materials, can be adequately controlled by way of conditions. To see the design and full decision, see https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWB5LCELIZ700.
for back story: SEE ALSO HERE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLANNING APPLICATION 15/00907/OUT
Park Court Garages - Off Ashford Road
We have examined this outline application and have the following comments to make:
We are not opposed to the principle of some appropriate residential development on this site but object to the scheme that has been submitted on the grounds that it is an inappropriate design. The building is not in keeping with the kind of attractive, modern mews development that can be seen elsewhere in Cheltenham (Southwood Lane is a nearby example). The design and access statement says that it is to be built in “traditional style”. The trouble is that tradition appears to be that of a Kentish cottage with its dropping eaves, with gables, at both ends rather than a good quality contemporary design as befits this part of the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area.
The site is very cramped and the proposed building will be uncomfortably close to the neighbouring Mercian Court.
In light of these comments, we believe that it might be possible to accommodate a single well-designed, single storey house that makes more skilful use of the narrow site but that the present scheme is unacceptable.
We are aware that a number of residents are concerned about several other aspects that might affect them, for example: overlooking windows and impact on privacy, cars being parked in the lane off Ashford Road and more traffic using this unsurfaced, un-adopted road. One possible way of meeting some of these concerns would be to encourage the applicant to discuss with Mercian Court if access could be secured from that side. This would be in line with the design of other properties (Isbourne Cottages) that back on to the land just to the north but which are accessed from Park Place.
Adrian Phillips (on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association)
20 July 2015
NB this planning application was rejected, and again on appeal. We issued a statement as follows:
SPJARA was among objectors to a proposed development of two small houses in place of the existing lock-up garages in the lane off Ashford Road behind Painswick Road, backing onto Mercia Court (Park Place). We thought the scheme on a very cramped site was unsympathetic in design terms, especially in a Conservation Area, and would intrude on neighbours. The Council supported our objection and refused permission. The developer appealed and we submitted our views to the inspector. She dismissed the appeal on the same grounds that we had objected to. She wrote: "The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area and would also fail to preserve the setting of the adjoining listed building. It would also harm the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers" (Ann Jordan, Inspector, 24 May 2016). A gratifying outcome.
The proposal has since been re-submitted in a revised form which we feel meets our concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLANNING APPLICATION 10/00869/OUT
14 Suffolk Street
These comments were submitted in August 2015 after the applicant sought a renewal of his ten-year old planning permission:
We recognise that this scheme was given outline planning permission in 2010. In principle we do not object to the proposal to build a small block of flats on this site. We are though concerned that no provision has been made for any on-site parking. Since the original permission was given, a parking control zone has come into force just to the north of Suffolk Street and there has been a marked increase in the amount of on street parking in this road as a result. The addition of a further number of cars owned by residents of the flats will only exacerbate the situation. We therefore suggest that the developers be asked to submit a revised scheme that makes provision for on-site, off-street parking.
We note that the former permission was an outline one. Whatever the Council decide re the request to renew the planning permission, we wish to be reassured that we (and the residents of Suffolk Street) will be consulted on the reserved matters before consent is given. Adrian Phillips (on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association)
2 August 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING APPLICATION 14/01306/FUL and 14/01306/LBC
177 Bath Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire
Comments from St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
We warmly welcome this proposal which will restore this handsome Regency terrace house on the corner of Bath Road and St Philip’s Street to its former glory. We particularly welcome the proposals to restore the garden railings, sash windows and other period features of this strategically placed building. This will ensure that this house makes a much improved contribution to the Bath Road environment and the appearance of St Philips Street.
We have two comments, on trees and bin storage, as follows:
Trees
The Design and Access Statement says “Landscaping: the external area fronting Bath Road has been cleared of wild undergrowth and will be laid to grass”. In fact the wild undergrowth was vigorously-growing buddleia. It clearly needed to be brought under control but it did provide a welcome green feature in this part of Bath Road. To make a similar contribution to the street, we would like the owner to plant a small tree in the front garden in their place and not to leave it just under grass. If the species were to be an amelanchier lamarckii, it would help extend the scheme already in place from 191-205 Bath Road. There seven such small trees have been planted and maintained in front gardens as part of the Connect Streets initiative, working with the home owners (Connect Streets is a partnership of the community, including SPJARA, the traders and the council). These trees have greatly softened the hard character of the street scene but without obscuring the architectural character of the terraces. A small tree of this kind could do the same for number 177.
Connect Streets has been working on a whole programme of small scale improvements to the Bath Road environment (see also 14/01171/FUL), and the upgrading of this property will make an important contribution to that broader scheme. By also extending the planting programme in front gardens to 177, this would add a welcome green element. If this can be made a landscape condition that would be ideal; if not we specifically ask that the planners raise this matter with the developer and suggest that he also discuss it with us.
Bin storage
We note that there does not seem to be an arrangement in the scheme for bin storage. This is always an issue in a property with multiple occupation and would suggest that this matter needs to be clarified before permission is granted.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI
(on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association)
29 July 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING APPLICATION 13/00309 FUL
Removal of existing pitched roof and construction of additional floor of accommodation with flat roof : Ashford Court Cottage, 4A Ashford Road, Cheltenham, GL50 2QZ
Comments from St Philip and St James Residents’ Association (SPJARA)
We object to this application for planning permission.
While we commend the intention of replacing the present bungalow with a residence that meets the highest environmental standards, we consider that the building will be: too large for this small site; very intrusive on the amenities of those living around it in the streets around (Park Place, Andover Walk and Ashford Road); and an inappropriate development in a Conservation Area.
The existing bungalow is unobtrusive, though of undistinguished design. We would support a scheme to replace it with a contemporary, single storey structure built to high environmental standards (e.g. in terms of energy conservation). However the site is so small and cramped that a two storey building would be unacceptably bulky.
We are aware of the concerns of several neighbours who adjoin the site. Like them we consider that the building would interfere unacceptably with their privacy by overlooking them and reducing their access to light and sunlight.
It is hard to tell from the drawings how such a structure would relate to other listed properties around and to the character of the Central Conservation Area and the Park Character Area in particular. But our impression is that it would sit awkwardly behind the Regency houses of Park Place. A singly storey new structure, discretely designed and cleverly landscaped, could though be an improvement on the present bungalow.
For these reasons we ask that Cheltenham Borough refuse planning permission for this scheme. We hope though that the owner and architect will resubmit a more appropriate design for the site.
Finally, we know that many of our members and others living in the area immediately affected by this proposal share our concerns and hope that planning permission will be refused.
Adrian Phillips CBE, MRTPI, FLI
(on behalf of St Philip and St James Residents’ Association)
Addition of raised rear section of roof, roof windows and replacement windows to principal elevations|17 Andover Street Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2EJ
Comments from St Philip and St James Residents’ Association
We do not object in principle to the creation of these changes. We have however some concerns. In particular we feel that this scheme could be rather more imaginative and also respect the privacy of adjoining properties that overlook it. Our detailed comments are
The current building is not a thing of beauty and the scheme as it stands will do little to improve that. While the insertion of three oriel windows overlooking the street will bring about a modest improvement in its appearance, the design is not one that will make a real contribution to this part of the Central Cheltenham Conservation Area.
Adjoining residents are understandably concerned about being overlooked by a roof garden and seek assurances that the roof extending over the rest of the garage should only be used for maintenance. We prefer an alternative approach. Providing that the roof is load bearing, we would suggest that the owner be encouraged to construct a green sedum roof. The roof could also be suitable for solar panels (thermal or PV).
While the addition of an extra storey, extending above the parapet, is not objectionable in the case of this particular building, it should not be seen as a precedent to be followed elsewhere with more sensitive buildings in the Conservation Area, for example above two-storey early Victorian terraces with parapets.
We support the views of the residents immediately to the east in Painswick Road who are concerned that the present rear window be retained as a non-opening and translucent glass window, so as to maintain existing levels of privacy. We understand that this is indeed the intention of the owner but it would be good to get that confirmed as a planning condition.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI
(on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association)
30 August 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING APPLICATION NO.12/01551/FUL
6 Park Place Cheltenham Gloucestershire: Construction of a replacement garage and alterations to rear boundary wall
Comments from St Philip and St James Residents’ Association (SPJARA)
We do not object in principle to this proposal but have three comments which we would like taken into account when a decision is made:
The proposals contain no plans for tree planting to replace the recently felled poplar. This tree was within the curtilage of the neighbouring property (no. 4 Park Place). We understand that is the intention of the owner of no.4 Park Pace to plant a replacement tree this winter, a move which we welcome.
The proposals say nothing about the surface of the parking area between the street and the garage. At present it is an unsightly spread of concrete, wide open to the street. We would ask that a condition of permission should be that this area is resurfaced with a more attractive material and one that is porous so as to reduce the effect of runoff, albeit marginally.
The flat roof will be visible to a number of houses on the east of Park Place and the west side of Painswick Road. We suggest that the owners be asked to consider creating a ‘green (or living) roof’ above the garage, planted with sedum or other suitable plants. Such green roofs are increasingly used in urban areas. It will have several benefits:
it would compensate for the loss of green space in the garden
it would create an area of pollen-bearing plants that will benefit bees and other insects, and birds
it would marginally reduce run-off from the roof surface
it would be an attractive feature for those who look down on it.
If planned at this stage, the extra costs of a green roof would be marginal in the whole scheme.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI on behalf of SPJARA
(on behalf of the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association)