Housing ‘Prison block’ flats rejected amid fears of illegal parking in town
PLANS for two blocks of flats blasted for their “horrendous prison-like” design have been rejected amid fears of “illegal parking” in Cheltenham town centre.
Lane Britton and Jenkins’ proposals to demolish the former J R Laboratories Ltd site at in Lower High Street to make way for two blocks of flats have been rejected.
Their scheme, which included 12 one-bedroom apartments and six twobedroom flats, was put before Cheltenham Borough Council’s planning committee last week. Officers told the meeting at the Municipal Offices on March 21 that the “car-less” scheme was “highly sustainable” but no affordable housing could be secured. And future residents would not be allowed to take out a parking permit.
Julia Manning, an objector speaking on behalf of residents at Honeybourne Gate, raised concerns the lack of spaces would lead to “illegal parking” on the narrow footway in Lower High Street.
She said the four-storey building was out of keeping with the area and would have an overbearing impact on the nearby apartments exclusively occupied by older people.
“For these people the view from their apartment is crucial to their quality of life,” she said.
Oliver Rider, the applicant’s agent, said the proposals would redevelop a “tired and redundant” site in the town. He said the site opposite was recently redeveloped with a four-storey apartment block.
“The current application has been designed to follow the scale of that building and clearly we are a lot smaller than the neighbouring Honeybourne Gate care development which is another development as well,” he said.
Mr Rider said the plans have been a long time in the making and the final design was in line with council officers’ advice.
“Your officers have got it bang on in their report where they conclude the development respects the character of the conservation area,” he added.
Councillor David Willingham (LD, St Peters) told the committee he was angry over how the council had dealt with the proposals and that it was a “mess”. He believed it was unlawful for them to approve the proposals because the viability report for the scheme had not been published – the report explains why the developers cannot afford to allocate any affordable housing on the site.
“You have unlawfully withheld this document from public scrutiny,” he told the committee. “We have an applicant saying it is not viable, you have withheld that document.”
He also raised concerns over the lack of Human Rights Act assessment as the council owns part of the land.
“The council is a potential financial beneficiary because it owns part of the land,” he said.
“It has also granted an advertising planning permission on the side of 452 [High Street] which would be thwarted by having a building plonked in front of it. Despite officers being told in writing several times of these two issues they have failed to address it. If the objectors judicially review it, you have been told of these problems and it would be reckless to proceed. It might also end up in [Private Eye’s] Rotten Boroughs, who knows.
“But it doesn’t give a good look to this council where it is both planning authority and potential financial beneficiary for things like that to be withheld.”
He also said the Borough Council was expecting taxpayers to pay for a parking restriction rather than the developer. The parking survey in an area where there is a large number of students was done when they were on holiday, he said.
“You are failing people by not making the developer pay for the changes to the parking. It’s a highway danger, it will cause car accidents.”
Cllr Victoria Atherstone (LD, St Peters) said she was excited when she first heard of the housing proposals but was later appalled by the lack of affordable housing and parking.
“I dread how awful it would become [to find a parking space] to have an extra 18 homes all needing somewhere to park.”
Chris Gomm, planning officer, said viability appraisals will be published without redactions going forward. However, there are older applications in the system which predate that approach, he told the committee.
He confirmed the Borough Council owned a small part of the site.
“In this particular case, the viability appraisal has been circulated to members of the planning committee by the case officer. While it is not publicly available it has been circulated to members.”
He said regarding the advertisement it is not the role of the planning committee to protect a particular view across private land.
Councillor Bernie Fisher (LD, Swindon Village) said the designs were “horrendous” and it looked like a “prison block”. He said people would probably park in White Hart Street and Townsend Street.
The committee voted to reject the scheme over loss of amenity, road safety and health and environmental concerns.
You are failing people by not making the developer pay for the changes to the parking. It’s a highway danger, it will cause car accidents
Councillor David Willingham