Note - on this page you can see our comments on the most recent planning issues in which we have been involved. Click here to see the many past cases we have been engaged in.
December 2024 - we support a restoration scheme in Great Norwood Street
We welcome this application, especially the planned changes in the external appearance of the front of the house as seen from Great Norwood Street. The proposal to replace the existing windows in the basement and ground levels has our strong support. The proposed timber 6 over 6 sash windows (one at ground floor level and two in the basement) will greatly improve the view of the house from the street and relate better to its neighbours. We applaud too the idea of using conservation grade double glazing in line with Historic England's advice, thereby improving insulation at the same time as restoring the original character of this house.
We welcome this application, especially the planned changes in the external appearance of the front of the house as seen from Great Norwood Street. The proposal to replace the existing windows in the basement and ground levels has our strong support. The proposed timber 6 over 6 sash windows (one at ground floor level and two in the basement) will greatly improve the view of the house from the street and relate better to its neighbours. We applaud too the idea of using conservation grade double glazing in line with Historic England's advice, thereby improving insulation at the same time as restoring the original character of this house.
June and October 2024 (see also case below) - Listed building consent for a new door applied for, and refused, in Park Place, following SPJARA objections
We object to this application (24/00987/LBC|Retention of alterations to basement lightwell and front basement elevations)for the reasons set out below.
1. The application itself is misleading.
The covering letter is disingenuous. It says "This application is for retrospective permission for the retention of works to the front (North West) elevation and basement light-well of No. 38 Park Place. This application is further to the approvals of 22/ 01682/ FUL & LBC and 23/ 00657/ LBC".
In fact, the action of creating the new front door at basement level is directly in contravention of the approval given by the council for application 23/ 00657/ LBC. The applicant sought approval for this door in an earlier version of the scheme, which was turned down. So, this is not just a piece of work undertaken in ignorance of the need for planning approval, but deliberately done in the knowledge that the request has been rejected. One is entitled therefore to suspect that the applicant would never have asked for consent for this work had not the local residents' association and Cheltenham Civic Society alerted the CBC to what has happened.
2. The justification given for installing the door is questionable
The applicants assert that, as there was a door there before, the work done in replacing the window with a door amounts to a reinstatement of an earlier situation; and that the window that has been removed was a modern feature. There is photographic evidence to support that, and we accept that there probably was a door there before the window.
However, it is our contention that it is almost certain that this earlier door was in fact a later modification of the original elegant Regency façade to Park Place. The window that the applicant has removed is a more recent modification by a previous owner in order to reinstate the original frontage; this work must have been completed by 1972 as the listing of that date (see below) makes no refence to a basement door.
3. Architectural evidence
The adjoining dwelling, no. 36, which forms part of the same semi-detached paired structure, has no such door. Typically, a Regency semi-detached house of this kind would have been symmetrical in external appearance. It is most improbable that nos. 36 and 38 were built to a different outward design.
In fact, all the paired villas in Park Place - they are mainly on the east side - have symmetrical frontages. There are no garden level entrances to any of the other paired villas north of nos. 36 and 38, as far as Andover Road. Further north, the paired villas (nos. 14 and 12, 10 and 8, and 6 and 4) have garden level entrances - but again each side of the pair has been designed in the same way.
Finally, the 1855 map (reproduced on page 5 of the Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment) shows no separate entrance to no 20 (what is now no. 38). This too would seem to point to the former door being a later feature.
4. Historic evidence
The Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment submitted with the application provides a clue as to how no. 38 obtained a garden-level door. The statement describes (page 6) how a local builder, William Tustin, had acquired the property by 1857. He advertised for a lodger in 1860. The assessment goes on to speculate that the "property was (perhaps) divided into two (the basement may have been separate?)". It seems likely that it was then that the original garden door was inserted. However, it might possibly have been later as the map of 1884 on page 5A shows an apparently glazed area covering a lightwell at the front of the house which might not have been compatible with a door below it. Either way, it seems almost certain that the door that the current owner has reinstated in breach of planning conditions was not part of the design of the original building.
5. The significance of listing
The Historic England's listing of nos. 36 and 38 is set out in full in the annex. It shows that at the time of listing (1972) there were two windows in the basement of both buildings and no mention of a door in no. 38. Those responsible clearly saw the two building as a matching pair which merited protection in the way that they appeared at the time.
6. The damaging consequences by the action taken
The new door may seem a small point. However, it not only affects no. 38 but it is also an intrusion into what the Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment calls "a formal late Georgan semi-detached villa linked with its neighbours to form a terrace with intact facade and front garden. The row of houses has significant group value". The integrity of the whole group of Listed Buildings is thus affected by this intrusive and incongruous feature to one of them.
Conclusions
- It is extremely unlikely that no. 38 was built with a garden-level door.
- It is probable that the door was inserted some decades after the house was built in order to provide access to a separate garden level flat.
- A later owner sought to restore the original frontage by replacing the door with a window; this work was done more than 50 years ago, before 1972 when it was listed.
As we have said in commenting previously on other applications affecting no. 38, if garden-level access is required it can be provided by creating a door under the front steps, as has been done with several other villas in Park Place. But we believe that the attempt to pass off the new door at the front of the house as reinstating the original is misleading. In fact, it reinstates an earlier violation of the original symmetrical frontage of an elegant pair of Regency villas.
On those grounds, and bearing in mind the way the conditions of the earlier permission were ignored, the application should be refused.
20 June 2024
PS: In October, the Council refused the above application. We assume the owner will now reinstate the window and make other changes in the light of the Council's decision, though an appeal is also possible. We await further developments.
We object to this application (24/00987/LBC|Retention of alterations to basement lightwell and front basement elevations)for the reasons set out below.
1. The application itself is misleading.
The covering letter is disingenuous. It says "This application is for retrospective permission for the retention of works to the front (North West) elevation and basement light-well of No. 38 Park Place. This application is further to the approvals of 22/ 01682/ FUL & LBC and 23/ 00657/ LBC".
In fact, the action of creating the new front door at basement level is directly in contravention of the approval given by the council for application 23/ 00657/ LBC. The applicant sought approval for this door in an earlier version of the scheme, which was turned down. So, this is not just a piece of work undertaken in ignorance of the need for planning approval, but deliberately done in the knowledge that the request has been rejected. One is entitled therefore to suspect that the applicant would never have asked for consent for this work had not the local residents' association and Cheltenham Civic Society alerted the CBC to what has happened.
2. The justification given for installing the door is questionable
The applicants assert that, as there was a door there before, the work done in replacing the window with a door amounts to a reinstatement of an earlier situation; and that the window that has been removed was a modern feature. There is photographic evidence to support that, and we accept that there probably was a door there before the window.
However, it is our contention that it is almost certain that this earlier door was in fact a later modification of the original elegant Regency façade to Park Place. The window that the applicant has removed is a more recent modification by a previous owner in order to reinstate the original frontage; this work must have been completed by 1972 as the listing of that date (see below) makes no refence to a basement door.
3. Architectural evidence
The adjoining dwelling, no. 36, which forms part of the same semi-detached paired structure, has no such door. Typically, a Regency semi-detached house of this kind would have been symmetrical in external appearance. It is most improbable that nos. 36 and 38 were built to a different outward design.
In fact, all the paired villas in Park Place - they are mainly on the east side - have symmetrical frontages. There are no garden level entrances to any of the other paired villas north of nos. 36 and 38, as far as Andover Road. Further north, the paired villas (nos. 14 and 12, 10 and 8, and 6 and 4) have garden level entrances - but again each side of the pair has been designed in the same way.
Finally, the 1855 map (reproduced on page 5 of the Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment) shows no separate entrance to no 20 (what is now no. 38). This too would seem to point to the former door being a later feature.
4. Historic evidence
The Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment submitted with the application provides a clue as to how no. 38 obtained a garden-level door. The statement describes (page 6) how a local builder, William Tustin, had acquired the property by 1857. He advertised for a lodger in 1860. The assessment goes on to speculate that the "property was (perhaps) divided into two (the basement may have been separate?)". It seems likely that it was then that the original garden door was inserted. However, it might possibly have been later as the map of 1884 on page 5A shows an apparently glazed area covering a lightwell at the front of the house which might not have been compatible with a door below it. Either way, it seems almost certain that the door that the current owner has reinstated in breach of planning conditions was not part of the design of the original building.
5. The significance of listing
The Historic England's listing of nos. 36 and 38 is set out in full in the annex. It shows that at the time of listing (1972) there were two windows in the basement of both buildings and no mention of a door in no. 38. Those responsible clearly saw the two building as a matching pair which merited protection in the way that they appeared at the time.
6. The damaging consequences by the action taken
The new door may seem a small point. However, it not only affects no. 38 but it is also an intrusion into what the Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment calls "a formal late Georgan semi-detached villa linked with its neighbours to form a terrace with intact facade and front garden. The row of houses has significant group value". The integrity of the whole group of Listed Buildings is thus affected by this intrusive and incongruous feature to one of them.
Conclusions
- It is extremely unlikely that no. 38 was built with a garden-level door.
- It is probable that the door was inserted some decades after the house was built in order to provide access to a separate garden level flat.
- A later owner sought to restore the original frontage by replacing the door with a window; this work was done more than 50 years ago, before 1972 when it was listed.
As we have said in commenting previously on other applications affecting no. 38, if garden-level access is required it can be provided by creating a door under the front steps, as has been done with several other villas in Park Place. But we believe that the attempt to pass off the new door at the front of the house as reinstating the original is misleading. In fact, it reinstates an earlier violation of the original symmetrical frontage of an elegant pair of Regency villas.
On those grounds, and bearing in mind the way the conditions of the earlier permission were ignored, the application should be refused.
20 June 2024
PS: In October, the Council refused the above application. We assume the owner will now reinstate the window and make other changes in the light of the Council's decision, though an appeal is also possible. We await further developments.
