Cheltenham Civic Society (CCS) has submitted a compelling objection to the planning application to create 26 apartments on the site of 86-90 Winchcombe Street. The Society made a detailed case against the scheme, which would violate a number of national and local policies designed to protect the heritage and character of Cheltenham’s town centre.
CCS Chair, Andrew Booton, said: “While we are not opposed in principle to the development of this site, this scheme pays no heed to its prominent position in the Central Conservation Area. It would dominate the adjacent heritage and listed buildings that form the site’s historic context and give the character to this part of Winchcombe Street.
“The proposed materials are inappropriate and have no precedent in this Character Area of the Central Conservation Area.
“The proportions and massing of the building overdevelop the site. It will appear quite overwhelming when viewed from street level, while the window forms are ugly and inappropriate.
“The building’s colour palette is altogether too dark and out of place in the neighbourhood where white or cream stucco is the norm.
“In summary, we fully support Historic England’s objection to the scale and design of the proposed building. It is one of the worst such proposals we have seen in recent years, and we urge the developer to go back to the drawing board and redesign the scheme from scratch – this time paying proper respect to the Conservation Area and all the national and local planning policies.”
SEE BELOW CCS’S PLANNING FORUM’S FORMAL OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO CBC
24/00904/FUL
Redevelopment of the site to provide 26 no. residential units (apartments) following demolition of the existing building.
86 – 90 Winchcombe Street Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL52 2NW
OBJECT
The current building was delisted in 2022 by Historic England (HE) after an application by the owner. If CBC had been more active in managing its Local Index, this building should have been considered for local indexing. However, the loss of listed status should not automatically deem the structure to be worthless. Indeed. it must be considered under s74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
National planning context:
The starting point to consider this application must be the duty to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA under s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The following guidance in the NPPF is relevant:
NPPF 195. ‘These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.’
NPPF 197. ‘When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.’
NPPF 213. ‘Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 207 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 208, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole’.
Local planning context
The Council’s Old Town Character Area Assessment and Management Plan says about new development (relevant text in italics):
The Council will refuse planning permission or other consents for proposals which fail to meet these criteria or for: a. the demolition of any building or structure if its loss would damage the character or appearance of the conservation area; b. the extension or alteration of a building where the change would damage the character or appearance of the conservation area; c. development which would be harmful to the setting or character or appearance of the conservation area; d. development which would adversely affect or result in the loss of important views, open spaces, tree cover or boundary features within the conservation area.
And this from the same document …
Action OT2: The Council will require new development to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area. Proposals should demonstrate a high quality of design and a proper consideration of context, including, inter alia, issues of: Size, Plot width and form, Layout, Orientation, Height, Urban grain, Enclosure of streets and spaces, Massing, Materials, Frontage activity, Scale, Landscape, Design.
Analysis of the proposal
As this site is in a Conservation Area, it must be considered against the above national and local policies. In making the case for the proposed building, and the loss of the existing one, the applicants fail to demonstrate sufficiently high architectural standards.
In respect of the existing building, we note that Cheltenham Civic Society’s HQ, Parmoor, suffered a similar fate with damaged fabric and could have been in danger of delisting but we recognised its façade’s significant contribution to the Conservation Area. The same applies with this building – it continues to make a positive contribution to the CA and should not be dismissed just because it is no longer listed.
Cheltenham Plan Policy HE1 requires developers to demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken to retain the building, including examination of alternative uses compatible with its local importance; AND retention of the building, even with alterations, would be demonstrably impracticable; AND the public benefits of the redevelopment scheme outweigh the retention of the building.
So our strong preference would have been to make good use of the existing building. The applicant fails to state why the existing building does not contribute to the CA’s significance, nor why it could not be converted, or perhaps enlarged with a structure such as that previously approved in 1991 (see section 2.6 of the DAS [Design and Access Statement]).
However, if the design were of sufficiently high quality, it might justify the demolition of the existing structure. But the proposal fails to demonstrate such a standard. The design is unacceptable for the following reasons:
Materials: The materials are inappropriate and have no precedent in this Character Area of the Central CA. Buff and ‘dark buff’ bricks have no precedent here. The detailing is very poor.
Proportions and Massing: The building overdevelops the site. The mass will appear quite overwhelming when seen from the street, and the setback of the top floor will hardly help. The windows and window forms are ugly and inappropriate in this character area of the Conservation Area.
Palette: The colours are out of place. Although there are a few brick buildings in the vicinity, they usually mix stucco and a pale coloured buff brick. This proposal is altogether darker in all aspects and the framework gives little relief to it.
Conclusion: We fully support HE’s comments on the design and specifically their “serious concerns” about the “scale and design of the building proposed [which] responds neither to prevailing local and historic character, nor does it relate to the grain of the surrounding built environment.
“Development of this form would dominate the adjacent listed and locally listed buildings which provide the site with its historic context.”
For all the above reasons we call on the council to reject this application.