Five residential flats at 63 Ryecroft Street, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application sought five flats, a first-floor extension, roof and window alterations, and five rear parking spaces with cycle and bin storage.

“Proposal: Change of use of commercial building (Use Class E) to create five residential units, erection of a first floor extension, roof alterations, insertion of dormer windows, alterations to existing openings and proposed parking area in rear yard (further amended plans including changes to cycle and bin storage, provision of vehicle tracking plans, visibility splays and inclusion of step-free access to ground floor entrance).”

“Permission is sought for the change of use of the Class E premises to create 5 residential units. Flats 1, 3, 4 and 5 flats would be 1 bedroom, 2 person flats whilst Flat 2 would provide 2 bedrooms for 3 persons. Flat 1 is proposed as M4(2) compliant accommodation. An internal ground floor room with access onto Vauxhall Street is proposed as cycle storage.”

Officer report

The site and building

The site is a prominent commercial building on the corner of Ryecroft Street and Vauxhall Road, with a lawful Class E use and courtyard access.

“The application site comprises 63 Ryecroft Street, a prominent two-and-a-half storey building located on the corner of Ryecroft Street and Vauxhall Road within Barton and Tredworth Ward, and its associated curtilage. The building’s front elevation faces onto Ryecroft Street. It has a long side elevation which faces onto Vauxhall Road where it adjoins onto a row of terraced properties to the rear.”

“The building has a lawful commercial use (Class E) comprising a retail unit, warehousing and office space. There is a vehicular access and courtyard accessed via Ryecroft Street.”

Officer report

Earlier application and changes

A seven-flat scheme was refused in 2024 for highway, employment-land and overdevelopment concerns; the current scheme reduced the number of flats and added amendments.

“This application itself follows the refusal of an application to convert the building into 7 flats in 2024. This application was refused for three reasons: as it had not demonstrated the presence of sufficient turning and parking space within the development with knock-on impacts upon highway safety and congestion; as it had not addressed the requirements of Policy B2 of the Gloucester City Plan with regards to the loss of employment land; and, finally, as the proposals…”

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 44/40937/HIST P/160/53:- COVERED WAY Z45APP 16.06.1953 44/40938/HIST 30530/01:- CHANGE USE-BAKERY & GENERAL STORE TO OFFICE & STORE AND ** Z45ASC 06.09.1988 99/00677/FUL Improvement/Alterations to front elevation Grant Permission 20.12.1999 22/01161/FUL Change of use of offices of retail/warehousing including raising of roof, two storey side extension with an underpass to create 4 x 1 bedroom flats and 3 x two bedroom flats…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Planning, highways, conservation, housing, waste, and flood officers raised no objection in their final responses, subject to conditions where applicable.

“Flood Risk and Drainage Officer – No Objection subject to conditions…”

“The proposed development would fall into the ‘more vulnerable’ flood risk vulnerability category. • The site is located within Flood Zone 1 where ‘more vulnerable’ development is permitted. The site is considered to be at very low risk from river flooding. • The risk of flooding from ground works will remain largely as existing given that the works are unlikely to significantly alter ground levels.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The ward member and a resident spoke against the application, while a resident and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members discussed parking, congestion, outdoor space, housing supply, the vacant building and whether the proposal would add pressure to the area.

“The size of the flats was a matter for the applicant, however for the purposes of the assessment, Officers were satisfied that each of the flats either met or exceeded national space standards and were acceptably sized. • The application before the Committee was for five residential flats and the Committee needed to consider the application before them on that basis. • The proposed development was on the corner of Ryecroft Street and Vauxhall Road.”

“The Highways Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding whether any of the parking spaces were large enough for a disabled parking bay, the information pack, whether there was adequate parking, whether the spaces were large enough to accommodate large cars, the application for a section 184 License, whether the parking fine statistics in the Late Material brought about any additional concerns, and whether there were any requirements for electric parking bays as…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.

“Councillor S. Chambers reflected on her local knowledge of the area and raised concerns about the traffic congestion. She noted that this was an area already under severe pressure and one of the most densely populated areas of the city. Councillor S. Chambers further noted that she had concerns about the lack of outdoor space and that if residents could not dry their washing outside, this had the potential to cause problems with damp and mould.”

“RESOLVED – That planning permission is granted subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer report.”

Minutes