Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above.  The recommendation is to refuse because planning policy requires an annexe to have dependency on the host building – this has no reliance, and its size, two bedrooms and raised patio make it tantamount to a separate dwelling.  Officers consider it should therefore be determined on that basis and that, as such, it represents over-development, with the scale, mass, bulk and footprint of the proposed dwelling overwhelming to the size of plot; it appears to be ‘shoehorned’ in.  There is also insufficient evidence that suitable visibility splays can be achieved for the shared access.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Paul McCloskey.

Public Speaking:

Councillor Paul McCloskey, in support

Explained that the applicant moved to Cheltenham with his family in 2011, and would now like to create ancillary accommodation for his wife’s elderly parents.  Two bedrooms are necessary in case one is ill or needs care; the bathroom will need to be able to cope with someone in a wheelchair, maybe with a carer. What is proposed is the minimum necessary, not excessive.  The family is acting responsibly in view of growing problems with social care across the country. The trees officer is now fully satisfied with the proposal, and conditions will be strictly adhered to, in addition to planting further trees as the landscaping progresses.  Regarding highways issue, the TRO to reduce the speed limit on London Road from 40 to 30mph has passed the consultation phase, and at 30mph, a 54-metre splay is sufficient to satisfy Highways requirements.  Any traffic issues disappear if you turn left out of the drive and then right into Hearne Road.  Officers are concerned that any future application to subdivide the plot would be difficult to resist, but understood that it is not the committee’s job to speculate on what might happen at some time in the future, but to judge the application as it stands.  Asks Members to consider carefully the officer’s comment in the report that in view of Cheltenham’s lack of a 5-year housing supply, ‘the application should be approved without delay unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. These people have the right to family life and dignity in old age, and urges the committee to support the application.

Mr Nigel Jobson, applicant, in support

Co-owns 332 London Road with his wife – they are not commercial developers, and the proposed annex is for his parents-in-law, who have sold their 4-bedroomed home to generate capital for their retirement.  They are a close family, and want to help and support their parents as their health inevitably deteriorates, lessening the burden on wider society.  Having them so close will also reduce the need for frequent care journeys which would be required if they were living elsewhere.  The local housing stock is varied in terms of age, design, size and proximity to the road.  The design and position of the annex is subservient to the house, with low visual impact from all directions, especially London Road; the fence and mature trees will obscure all but the very top of it.  The location and width aligns to the already approved plans for a double garage and drive access, and the garden will not be sub-divided.   Neighbours at 330 and 328 London Road and at 5 Courtfield Drive support the scheme.   The planning officer considers the annex is being shoehorned into the site with limited space between it and the main house, but would draw Members’ attention to 282 London Road, where two large 4-bedroomed dwellings are to replace one single house, with  just 1.8m between them and limited garden and drive access.  Since buying 332 London Road, have received canvassing letters from developers seeking to purchase the plot, with a view to demolishing the house and replacing it with up to seven residential units.  This would be financially advantageous, but the family bought the house with a view to it being their home forever. 

Member debate:

SW:  was initially very much with the officers on this one, wondering what anyone with a house as big as this want with a second building in their garden.  Now apologises for this view; it is clear what they want it for.  Officers say the annex is ‘shoehorned’ into the site, but cannot support this comment – has seen sites of a similar size with 15 dwellings proposed.  Highways officers have made their comments which need to be taken into account, but other properties have much more awkward exits onto faster roads than this.  Therefore is really struggling with the objections, and is minded to support the application.

HM:  it seems a pity that the Highways Officer wasn’t aware of the TRO under consultation.  As PM said, this is about to be implemented subject to a planning application elsewhere in London Road.  At 30mph, the required visibility splay will be much reduced.  Supports the application if a condition is included to ensure that the house is not habitable until the 30mph limit is in place.

PB:  would not support HM’s suggested condition, knowing the pace at which Shire Hall moves – it could take years, and such a condition would be unfair.  The current house could have four cars serving it, and yet one additional dwelling is unacceptable in highways terms; visibility to the right is extensive, and considered OK for the house as it is.  The application is for a bungalow in the grounds of the house – this should not be allowed to be sold separately, only as a single item with the main house.  Sees planning as holistic, and Members need to consider how the scheme will be used and what is the best use for the plot.  This case is compelling, and as long as a condition is attached to ensure that the annex can only be sold with the main house, is happy to support the application.

CH:  anticipated some years ago that there would be an increase in the number of proposals to accommodate parents at home; expects we will see applications such as this more and more often as time goes on.  It isn’t just about elderly parents – a similar scheme could be used to accommodate a disabled child, giving them semi-independence in their own space.  We need to take these considerations very seriously; it is better all round, for society and for families to have relatives looked after at home.  We need to look at how to protect the property, however, and ensure that the applicants can’t say one thing now and do something else next year.

BF:  takes issue with the officer opinion that the annex is ‘shoehorned’ in to the plot – it is enormous.  It isn’t a separate house with a separate entrance, and there is nothing in planning guidance to say that an annex has to be attached to the main house.  Regarding the design, it won’t win any prizes, but has seen worse.   Can’t accept that this plot is being overdeveloped or falls under the SPD on garden land development.  This is an annex; it is substantial, but that is the owner’s choice – the planning authority should not dictate.  Cannot go with the refusal reasons.

KS:  has kept an open mind with this, and can see potential problems regarding visibility, with more cars using this plot.  Regarding the materials, is not sure about timber cladding; this often ends up looking bad after a few years, so could the annex not have a finish similar to the main house?  If it is rendered in the same way, it would look more subservient and similar to the main house – more like an annex.  If the application is permitted, there should be a condition to ensure that the annex cannot be sold separately.  It is acceptable that a house this big should have an annex; her main concern is the timber cladding.

CN:  there is an interesting range of applications on the agenda tonight – when looking at them before the meeting, wasn’t sure which way to vote on the night – but this application is unfortunate and at a disadvantage in being the first to be considered, bearing in mind other applications coming later.  Thanks the two speakers for their eloquent and sincere presentations.  Committee members are advised by officers and must listen intently to what they say and take their opinions on board, but at the end of the day, committee members are councillors, elected to represent the people of the town.  As PB said, a holistic approach to planning must be taken.  Has listened to the speakers and other councillors, and senses a mood of changing opinions. We all know the town has a problem with its 5-year housing supply and is in acute need of new housing.  As CH has said, we have an ageing population, and sustainable solutions to their future care, such as this, make sense.  May struggle to find planning reasons to support the officers’ recommendation, but is currently minded to support the applicant.

PT:  wants to agree with PB.   If there is a tie-in between the two units so one cannot be sold without the other, this would show up on searches and be established for the foreseeable future.  With this condition, will support the application.

MP, in response:

-       if Members are looking to support the proposal, the tie-in between the two properties will need to be secured by a legal agreement rather than a condition – a condition such as this is difficult to enforce;

-       to KS, regarding materials, we cannot attach a condition requiring the building to be rendered – it would not lend itself to a rendered finish;

-       if Members are happy considering the proposed dwelling purely as an annex, access is acceptable – that is Highways advice.

NJ, in response:

-       Members need to be mindful that officers have pointed out that the proposed development could provide independent living accommodation – a separate planning unit – and this should be at the forefront of their minds when determining this application.

MP, in response:

-       Would also remind Members that, as an annex, this proposal would not contribute to the housing supply in the borough.

PT:  is NJ saying that we can’t have a legal agreement to ensure that the annex cannot be sold independently?

NJ, in response:

-       It is possible to tie the dwellings together by way of an S106 agreement, but applications to vary these can be made in the future.

CN:  even if the annex doesn’t count in the 5-year housing supply, but two elderly people down-sizing to this dwelling means that their house is now available for someone else.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

4 in support

9 in objection

2 abstentions

Motion not carried

MP, in response:

-       If Members are minded to permit, officers would like the Trees Officer’s five recommended conditions attached to ensure the retention of the TPO’d trees – as set out in the report.

Vote to permit with S106 agreement and tree-related conditions

10 in support

5 abstentions

PERMIT

NOTE:  KS left the meeting at this point.