Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, which has been amended during consideration, making it more conventional in appearance.  It is at Committee as Councillor Harman’s request, in view of the objection of the residents’ association. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Farmer, neighbour, in objection

Lives at No. 61 next door the the application site.  The local residents’ association considers the plan out of proportion with other three in block, giving elevated views over the gardens of Nos. 61 and 57.  Two adjacent houses have single-storey extensions not shown on block plan. Planning officers have  supported  this scheme, although they did not approve the previous application, although the design and bulk are very similar, though less garden is used.  This proposal is taller, obscuring more light light at 61 and 57, and overshadowing their patio and garden.  On the site visit, Members have seen the effect of the proposal on the garden room window 61, reducing daylight and sky.  If approved, they will look out on a towering blank wall, with no sky. This is a greedy, selfish application, which was submitted without any discussion with neighbours, who didn’t know about it until after the plans were submitted.  The proposal will detract from original building, and Nos.  61 and 57 will lose daylight - this is unacceptable – and neither will the improve or enhance character of area.  Retired to this house in Painswick Road with his wife, and has not made any changes to his home.  This proposal will seriously and adversely impact on their lives.

Mr Keatinge, applicant, in support

Is the owner of No. 59, and has made every reasonable effort to balance planning requirements, personal preference, and third party considerations.  The original submission has been amended and now approved by officers, with wall facings, first floor scaled back, dormer removed for greater overall balance.  Is willing to replace the large tree, which could have impact on No 57, subject to requirement of Committee.  MJC has considered all objections to the scheme, as detailed in the report, and still reached his recommendation to permit, with no grey areas or caveats, regarding loss of daylight or privacy.  The proposal is also approved by various consultees.  At para 6.2.4 of the report, the officer states his view that this is a text-book extension, not dominant, compliant with CP7, not harmful, and well thought through.  The intent is to respect and enhance the central conservation area, where he has lived for many years, making a home for his family, and considers he has been more than reasonable in his effort to achieve this.

Councillor Harman, in objection

 This is the second time in three-and-a-half years an application at this property has been at Committee, and would like to draw Members’ attention to a number of points.  They have heard from Mr Farmer at No. 61, but this proposal will impact on No. 57 equally.  Members will have visited these properties on Planning View; was himself stunned when he looked from the window of No. 61 and imagined what the impact of the proposal will be. The phrase, ‘There is the real world and then there is Planning’ hits a note here.  Objections have not only been received from neighbours but also from St Philip’s and St James’s Residents Association (SPJARA) and its chairman Adrian Philips, who raise a number of relevant points.  The feeling of residents is that there is insufficient difference between the original and the new application to justify the recommendation to permit.  SPJARA’s closing paragraph, stating that it does not routinely support objections from neighbours, but considers this proposal to be so out of scale as to raise wider issues about good neighbourliness, and also to set a bad precedent, sums up the main issues here.   Hopes the Committee will seriously consider the validity of SPJARA’s comments and refuse the application. 

Member debate:

PT:  did the extension pass the light test?  How tall is the single-storey extension, and how much will it appear above the fence?  It looks as if only the single-storey extension is adjacent to No. 61; the two-storey extension is against the driveway.

PB:  these sorts of applications are often the most difficult to consider as they are massive for the people concerned on both sides.  Finds himself in an invidious position, but following the site visit, feels he will support this application for what is a decent-looking application to create a nice family home.  There are no good planning grounds to refuse it.

MJC, in response:

-       to PT, yes, the proposal passes the light test on both sides;

-       the height of the extension is 2.8m on the boundary; permitted development allows 3m.

SW:  can see no reason why the neighbours would object to the single-storey extension.  The first floor appears intrusive, but as officers say it passes the light test, it would be difficult to defend at appeal.  Sympathises with the neighbour, and if there was any good reason to refuse, would go along along with it – but there is not.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

1 in objection

4 abstentions

PERMIT