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. We are seeking clarification from our local councillors as to why this has happened.
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.
Despite our objections, see below, this scheme was given planning permission on 21 September. We are seeking clarification from our local councillors as to why this has happened.
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.
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
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".
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
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)
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 applications affecting Suffolk Street and off Ashford Road
SPJARA commented on two applications on 4 October 2107 as follows:
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.
Post script - 14 Suffolk Road development: Permitted on 21 November 2017, subject to a number of minor conditions – see https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DFC163F428926150E9224A18E4B3A473/pdf/17_01760_OUT-DECISION_NOTICE-841291.pdf. Our comments appear to have little impact.
for back story: SEE ALSO HERE
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)
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.
Post script - Off Ashford Road development Revised scheme: Permitted on 15 December 2017
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
SPJARA commented on two applications on 4 October 2107 as follows:
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.
Post script - 14 Suffolk Road development: Permitted on 21 November 2017, subject to a number of minor conditions – see https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DFC163F428926150E9224A18E4B3A473/pdf/17_01760_OUT-DECISION_NOTICE-841291.pdf. Our comments appear to have little impact.
for back story: SEE ALSO HERE
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)
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.
Post script - Off Ashford Road development Revised scheme: Permitted on 15 December 2017
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
