PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor extension to 35 Church Road to provide three residential apartments.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.20        This application was for the erection of a first floor extension to 35 Church Road to provide three residential apartments. 

10.21        The Planning Officer advised that the building was the former bank in Church Road, Bishop’s Cleeve located on the corner of Church Road and Church Approach which led to Grade I listed St Michael and All Angels Church.  The site was located opposite the Grade II listed Royal Oak Public House and adjacent to the Conservation Area within the designated retail area of Bishop’s Cleeve.  Planning permission had been granted under application 19/00688/FUL for external alterations to the ground floor to enable retail use.  The principle of the sensitive, adaptive use of vacant or redundant buildings was supported by Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and saved local plan Policy RET3 supported retail uses at ground floor with residential use at upper floor levels.  The principle of the proposed mixed use was supported, subject to other policy considerations such as design and layout, heritage assets, housing mix, residential amenity, access and highway safety.  Members were advised that the building was situated in a retail area where buildings varied in age, type and design.  The proposed design had incorporated the recommendations of the Council’s Conservation Adviser in terms of retaining a focal corner with the set back of the first floor, pitched roof and use of render with cladding and a lower flat roof toward the side.  This approach complemented the design and materials of the existing building and the proposal was considered appropriate to the character of the area with the materials controlled by condition.  The Conservation Adviser considered that the proposal would generate a less than substantial harm to heritage assets and their setting and the public benefit of increased provision of commercial premises, low cost residential accommodation and securing the future of a vacant building outweighed any harm.  It was noted that there was an identified need for one and two bedroom accommodation and this proposal would provide low cost accommodation that met required space standards in a sustainable location.  Objections had been received from residents and the Parish Council regarding impact on the amenity of the properties on Church Approach; however, confirmation was provided that, whilst their front amenity space would be overlooked, that space was already overlooked by the first floor of adjacent properties and, as there was no direct overlooking of windows, the impact was not considered to be substantially harmful.  The Planning Officer went on to explain that the proposed development had an existing access onto Church Approach and no on-site parking had been provided as part of the proposal; however, the site was in a sustainable location served by public transport, parking was available within walking distance and on-site cycle storage would also be provided.  Therefore, it was considered that the proposal could be accommodated without compromising highway safety and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions.

10.22        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that, as set out in the Officer report, the proposal was simply for a first floor extension above the existing retail unit to provide three one-bedroom apartments.  The existing ground floor unit would remain both in terms of use and appearance and there were many examples of upper floor residential apartments above retail units along Church Road so this would be no different.  The site was in a highly sustainable location with immediate access to a full range of public services, facilities and amenities and was within the defined service centre of Bishop’s Cleeve which had a big role to play in delivering housing over the plan period.  The opportunity to maximise the use of this location was nothing but positive, as was the provision of low cost one bedroom accommodation for which there was a significant identified need within the Council’s housing market needs assessment.  The applicant had worked closely with the Council’s Planning and Conservation Officers through the process and had listened to the feedback from the Parish Council; as a result, the scheme had been reduced from four to three apartments and, in doing so, ensured that it met with the nationally prescribed space standards for such development.  The Conservation Officer’s requirements had also been met by incorporating a more traditional pitched roof design and by setting the first floor in from the ground floor to retain the architectural integrity of the original ground floor building.  Both the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer had now confirmed they were satisfied with the revised proposals and that the development complied fully with the design, amenity and space standard aspirations of the development plan.  Given the accessible location of the site, and the one bedroom nature of the accommodation, the applicant’s agent explained that there was every likelihood that future occupiers would not be reliant on the private car to undertake their primary movements – there were two supermarkets, a retail parade, major employers, community centres, a library, a Church, two Public Houses and public transport within 100 metres of the site so he could not think of a genuinely more sustainable location.  In the event that occupiers did have cars, there were places to park them within a convenient walking distance; double yellow lines were in place along Church Road and surrounding streets which adequately policed indiscriminate parking.  By working with Officers throughout the process, the applicant’s agent felt that a scheme had been secured which addressed all points raised as well as the comments made by the Parish Council.  The opportunity to meet housing need across the borough with low-cost accommodation, in such a highly sustainable location, was something that should weigh heavily in favour of permission and he hoped Members would be able to support the application. 

10.23        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused due to the absence of on-site parking which would result in displacement that would have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential areas in terms of the amount of people parking on those streets, and on the basis that the benefits of the proposal as a whole would not outweigh the harm to the Grade I listed building.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he was particularly concerned with regard to the lack of on-site parking, especially as planning permission had already been granted for three commercial units beneath these apartments, and proximity to the Grade I listed Church.  The seconder of the motion felt it was unrealistic to expect that people who occupied these apartments would not have cars and he pointed out the lack of on-street and overnight parking in the surrounding area.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that, given the location of the site in the service centre of Bishop’s Cleeve, with its range of facilities and good transport links, it would be difficult to justify a refusal based on the lack of on-site parking – a number of alternative modes of transport could be used by future occupiers.  The County Highways representative confirmed that this was a location which could support car free development.  The main question to consider was, if no parking was provided on-site and cars were displaced, where would they go – in this instance there were appropriate parking restrictions in the area to protect existing residents and sufficient capacity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.24         A Member shared the concerns regarding parking and pointed out that three apartments could potentially result in six additional vehicles.  Furthermore, only one of the three apartments had a balcony meaning that two had no access to any private open space; if the Council was looking to provide quality places to live she felt it was important to consider the health and wellbeing of residents, particularly given the current situation with COVID-19 and the restrictions in place.  She was not happy with the proposal and would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.  Another Member indicated that, whilst he liked the design of the proposal, he had concerns about the size of the apartments and felt it was difficult to make a proper assessment without any dimensions.  He noted that the proposal included cycle storage and queried whether this would be specifically for residents, or whether it could potentially be used by people working in the area, and questioned how secure that storage would be.  In response, the Planning Officer reiterated that reducing the number of apartments from four to three meant that the proposal complied with national space standards.  The Technical Planning Manager provided assurance that this had been carefully considered as a policy was included within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan to ensure that all developments met the national standards and the design of the apartments had been amended accordingly, as such, it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal reason on the basis of size.  In terms of the comments made by the previous Members regarding access to outdoor space, whilst he understood the point being made, it was not possible to introduce a moratorium on flats and there was open space in the area that residents could take advantage of.

10.25         A Member sought clarification regarding the Council’s current policies in relation to parking as he shared the views that had already been expressed and felt that, if no on-site provision was made, the occupants of the apartments would be taking up parking spaces for the post office and other local shops.  Another Member indicated there was quite a disparity between theory and reality, the theory being that it was acceptable to provide flats with no parking when the location was sustainable and public transport was available, but the reality was that people decided for themselves whether they wished to own, or use, a private motor vehicle and therefore needed a parking space.  Parking was already difficult in the central area of Bishop’s Cleeve and there was a problem with displacement; reference had been made to parking being available within walking distance of the site, and there was certainly some on-street parking on residential roads but this was already used by others.  As far as he could see, permitting this application in its current form would only add to the burden and cause harm to Bishop’s Cleeve.  In his view, the authority should be providing accommodation which had the facilities that people needed so that no harm was caused to others and he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.  Another Member completely agreed with the points made about parking and pointed out that Bishop’s Cleeve was still without main cycle routes so the bicycle storage included within the proposal was little consolation.  The seconder of the motion indicated that there were flats above shops on Mill Parade but they all had car parking spaces at the rear.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that the Council had no adopted policies specifically requiring a certain amount of car parking; however, Policy TRAC9 within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan set out that proposals for new development generating a demand for parking provision should be accompanied by appropriate evidence in terms of car parking provision and whether that was sufficient.  The issues that should be considered when assessing the appropriate level were: accessibility of the development; type, mix and use of development; availability of, and opportunity for, public transport; local car ownership levels; the overall need to reduce high emission vehicles; and a comparison of the forecasted trip generation and resultant accumulation within the proposed parking provision.  Officers had tried to be consistent with this policy context in their assessment of this application and, whilst he understood the comments that had been made by Members in terms of taking a pragmatic, common-sense approach, he also felt that households with two vehicles were unlikely to be attracted to the type of property being proposed.  The County Highways representative reiterated that there were no local parking standards to support a refusal and current evidence based on the level of parking in the area was that there would be no adverse impact in terms of safety or capacity.  A Member questioned whether moderate weight could be given to Policy TRAC9, given that it was included in the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that Members could give it weight but he was not convinced that policy would direct them to a refusal in this instance on the basis of the matters that should be taken into account.  Notwithstanding this, it was a matter of judgement and Members may feel there was local evidence which suggested that the proposal would be harmful and unacceptable; however, he would exercise caution given the policy context and the expert advice that had been received. 

10.26         The proposer of the motion to refuse the application noted that one of the issues that should be considered when assessing the appropriate level of parking as part of Policy TRAC9 was the need to reduce high emission vehicles and he pointed out that even electric vehicles still needed places to park.  He felt that the main issue was one of displacement and the impact on the surrounding area and neighbours as opposed to one of safety, as referenced by the County Highways representative.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager advised that the issues around displacement and the impact on surrounding areas in the local community had been discussed by Officers.  Another Member expressed the view that the applicant should be asked to think about how parking could be provided to meet the needs of the occupiers of the proposed development and pointed out that the seconder of the motion had referenced similar developments in Bishop’s Cleeve where parking provision had been secured and was effective.  A Member noted that the Officer report mentioned Policy RES13 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan but Policy TRAC9 was not discussed. The Tewkesbury Borough Plan Working Group had had many discussions about the issue of parking provision and Policy TRAC9 set out what should be considered when applications such as this were submitted so she would be uncomfortable permitting an application without adequate parking provision.  She indicated that the centre of Bishop’s Cleeve was already extremely busy, mentioning the school, post office and supermarket specifically, so any further on-street parking would only add to the problems experienced. 

10.27         With respect to the earlier comments made by the proposer of the motion regarding the impact on the historical Church, the Technical Planning Manager stated that the Council’s Conservation Adviser - who had been involved in the design of the scheme before Members - was of the view that the impact would be acceptable as although there would be harm it would be less than substantial  and outweighed by the benefits.  It was a matter for Members as to whether the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm to the listed building.  The proposer of the motion explained that it was difficult to see from the photographs how close the development was to the entrance of the churchyard.  Although there were houses on the other side, they were set back from the driveway whereas this development would look directly over the driveway and into the churchyard which he did not think was appropriate.

10.28         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED due to the absence of on-site parking which would result in displacement that would have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential areas in terms of the amount of people parking on those streets, and on the basis that the benefits of the proposal as a whole would not outweigh the harm to the Grade I listed building.