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
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 replace once more by window before the final scheme was approved
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.
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.
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 well alongside 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:
Adrian Phillips CBE, MRTPI (Rtd), FLI
on behalf of St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association
August 2021- We object to a new development in Grafton Road
Comments:21/01801/FUL | External and internal alterations | 32 Grafton Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2DE
Comments by the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
Summary
We did not oppose the planned change of use from the former haulage business to residential, which was permitted last year under 20/02192/COU. However, we object to the current proposal on the grounds that:
- the appearance from the street seems likely to be incongruous, overbearing and out of character in the Conservation Area
- the lack of detail in the plans as put forward on the Cheltenham Borough website, and in particular the absence of the required Design and Access Statement.
Background to our assessment of the proposal
The former industrial use of 32 Grafton Road dates from the time when many premises near Norwood Road (the route of the old tramway for stone from Leckhampton Hill) were workplaces. That no longer applies so much now, and buildings in Grafton Road should be assessed for their contemporary use, as houses in a street full of residential properties.
This end of Grafton Road has several modest Victorian period houses in it, including no. 34 and also the houses to west of no. 32. But no. 32 itself is out of all proportion for a domestic property, its design being dictated by its former industrial use. It seems perverse to use this as the template for converting no. 34, which is what the development proposes to do, rather than use no. 34 as the basis for the new design.
We recognise that if the existing buildings are going to be retained, finding a satisfactory design solution will be difficult. But as well as being the wrong scale, the new street frontage is also a disturbing mix of proportions and features. Instead of a functional garage door there is a large panel (more than three metres high) of undisclosed material, which seems intended to hide a window and a staircase. It sits alongside a separate 'timber screen' which seems partially to obscure the front door. The windows overlooking the street appear arbitrary in their location and design. This cannot be said to be a building that will add beauty to the street scene - which is a welcome objective of last year's Planning White Paper.
We are not opposed to a contemporary design in this street and would point to the new house across the road, which was approved under 14/01848/FUL (Land to the rear of 205/207 Bath Road), as an illustration of a building that respects the scale of its neighbours. In recommending approval at the time, the planning officer reported that "in terms of mass, scale, height and architectural style [this building] will complement the historic built environment and is compatible with the character of this part of the Bath Road conservation area". We do not believe the same could be said of the proposal for nos. 32/34 Grafton Road".
In summary, the street scene created by the plan for nos. 32/34 Grafton Road will:
- be overbearing alongside its neighbours
- introduce an incongruous design
- not be appropriate for what is in effect an entirely new street frontage in the Conservation Area.
Our comments relate only to the street frontage as this is what will impact the local community. But some of the internal perspectives are also unsatisfactory from a design point of view.
Documentation
The Cheltenham Borough planning web site (and indeed Government policy) makes clear that a Design and Access Statement is a requirement for householder developments in a Conservation Area (CA) where the proposed development consists of one or more dwellings, or a building or buildings with a floor space of 100 square metres or more. As this proposed development is in a CA and the former industrial space in no. 32 alone has a floor space of 135 m2, a DAS would seem to be a requirement.
As the Government's Planning Portal says, "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".
No such statement appears to have been provided by the developer in this case (the planning statements submitted with the Change of Use application cannot be considered to be a DAS as prescribed by DCHLG or CBC). As a result, it is very hard to understand some aspects of this scheme, such as the thought given to context and relationship to the street scene, the design principles that have been followed, insulation standards and the rationale for the external appearance.
As a DAS is a requirement in this case, but does not appear among the documents provided, we are not clear why the application has been accepted for assessment.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI on behalf of SPJARA
30 August 2021
(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 well alongside 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.
Adrian Phillips CBE, MRTPI (Rtd), FLI
on behalf of St Philip and St James Area Residents’ Association
August 2021- We object to a new development in Grafton Road
Comments:21/01801/FUL | External and internal alterations | 32 Grafton Road Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 2DE
Comments by the St Philip and St James Area Residents' Association
Summary
We did not oppose the planned change of use from the former haulage business to residential, which was permitted last year under 20/02192/COU. However, we object to the current proposal on the grounds that:
- the appearance from the street seems likely to be incongruous, overbearing and out of character in the Conservation Area
- the lack of detail in the plans as put forward on the Cheltenham Borough website, and in particular the absence of the required Design and Access Statement.
Background to our assessment of the proposal
The former industrial use of 32 Grafton Road dates from the time when many premises near Norwood Road (the route of the old tramway for stone from Leckhampton Hill) were workplaces. That no longer applies so much now, and buildings in Grafton Road should be assessed for their contemporary use, as houses in a street full of residential properties.
This end of Grafton Road has several modest Victorian period houses in it, including no. 34 and also the houses to west of no. 32. But no. 32 itself is out of all proportion for a domestic property, its design being dictated by its former industrial use. It seems perverse to use this as the template for converting no. 34, which is what the development proposes to do, rather than use no. 34 as the basis for the new design.
We recognise that if the existing buildings are going to be retained, finding a satisfactory design solution will be difficult. But as well as being the wrong scale, the new street frontage is also a disturbing mix of proportions and features. Instead of a functional garage door there is a large panel (more than three metres high) of undisclosed material, which seems intended to hide a window and a staircase. It sits alongside a separate 'timber screen' which seems partially to obscure the front door. The windows overlooking the street appear arbitrary in their location and design. This cannot be said to be a building that will add beauty to the street scene - which is a welcome objective of last year's Planning White Paper.
We are not opposed to a contemporary design in this street and would point to the new house across the road, which was approved under 14/01848/FUL (Land to the rear of 205/207 Bath Road), as an illustration of a building that respects the scale of its neighbours. In recommending approval at the time, the planning officer reported that "in terms of mass, scale, height and architectural style [this building] will complement the historic built environment and is compatible with the character of this part of the Bath Road conservation area". We do not believe the same could be said of the proposal for nos. 32/34 Grafton Road".
In summary, the street scene created by the plan for nos. 32/34 Grafton Road will:
- be overbearing alongside its neighbours
- introduce an incongruous design
- not be appropriate for what is in effect an entirely new street frontage in the Conservation Area.
Our comments relate only to the street frontage as this is what will impact the local community. But some of the internal perspectives are also unsatisfactory from a design point of view.
Documentation
The Cheltenham Borough planning web site (and indeed Government policy) makes clear that a Design and Access Statement is a requirement for householder developments in a Conservation Area (CA) where the proposed development consists of one or more dwellings, or a building or buildings with a floor space of 100 square metres or more. As this proposed development is in a CA and the former industrial space in no. 32 alone has a floor space of 135 m2, a DAS would seem to be a requirement.
As the Government's Planning Portal says, "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".
No such statement appears to have been provided by the developer in this case (the planning statements submitted with the Change of Use application cannot be considered to be a DAS as prescribed by DCHLG or CBC). As a result, it is very hard to understand some aspects of this scheme, such as the thought given to context and relationship to the street scene, the design principles that have been followed, insulation standards and the rationale for the external appearance.
As a DAS is a requirement in this case, but does not appear among the documents provided, we are not clear why the application has been accepted for assessment.
Adrian Phillips MRTPI, FLI on behalf of SPJARA
30 August 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 boradly simillar 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 appliation, 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 commented a year ago on the original application (20/00583/FUL)- see below on this page. This revised scheme is boradly simillar 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 appliation, 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"
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."
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."
November 2020: Can we save the little wildlife oasis off Norwood Road?
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 ....
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.
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
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
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, affecting Mendip, 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
We objected to the revised scheme but it was approved by the Planning Committee on 20 August 2020
Original scheme
20/00326/FUL, affecting Mendip, 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
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
102: Good design for a single storey house
102: Considerable but not very visible and little public impact
102: Sets precedent, though less markedly so
102: Minimal impact
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.
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)
102: Good design for a single storey house
- Loss of garden
102: Considerable but not very visible and little public impact
- Precedent
102: Sets precedent, though less markedly so
- Impacts neighbours
102: Minimal impact
- Conflicts with planning policies on i) respecting local character, and ii) loss of gardens and subdivision
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.
