Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/01597/FUL
Location:	6 Wards Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Proposed erection of a wheelchair lift at the front of the property and relocation of front door
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Refuse
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		2	Update Report:		None

 

CS introduced the application as above, saying it is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor McKinlay, due to the special circumstances.  While the needs of the applicant are acknowledged, officers feel that the proposal will be harmful to the existing property and surrounding area, hence the recommendation to refuse. 

 

Public Speaking:

Councillor  McKinlay, ward councillor, in support

As CS has said, asked for this application to come to Committee for consideration as, under delegated authority, it would have been refused on policy CP7.  Wearing his other hat, as cabinet member with responsibility for the built environment, would have to say that is the correct decision on policy grounds.  However, feels that the particular circumstances of this case mean that we should make an exception to the rule - members will have read that the applicant’s wife has a medical condition which has prompted this planning application.  In normal circumstances, where a proposed addition to a property will have an obvious visual impact on the road, we would have objections from neighbours, but in this case, there are none.  All neighbours have verbally told the applicant that they are in favour of the proposal, and those at Nos. 2 and 8 have written letters of support.  This indicates the way the proposal is viewed in the street.  One of the pictures shows the proposal as a large black tube clad in reflective black glass – this was chosen to reflect the environment better than anything else, but the applicant is happy to clad it in whatever material the Committee may think appropriate.  The applicant has also agreed to remove the lift before the property is sold or when it is no longer used – it is not a permanent structure. 

 

The officer report acknowledges the significant benefits of installing the lift on the outside – it will not reduce the available floor space inside and will be fully reversible – but have made an on-balance recommendation on account of the harm it will do to the street scene, policy considerations, and its obtrusive design.  However, as the neighbours do not object, and the lift is required for the clear purpose of allowing the applicant to continue living in the family home, the Committee should used its discretion in relation to this application.  Personally feels that enforcing CP7 in this instance would be the wrong decision. 

 

Member debate:

HM:  is pleased to hear AM say that the applicant is prepared to consider other materials for cladding, as this is the real nub of the issue.  If Members are minded to approve the application, can this be a condition – that alternative cladding material be submitted, to be approved by officers?

 

AL:  there was mention in the report that the lift could be removed when it is no longer required.  Can this be conditioned successfully?

 

BF:  it is difficult to tell from the illustration how the reflective surface of the lift shaft will appear in reality.  It will reflect other parts of the property, the street scene etc, and won’t look as harsh as the solid black line on the photo.  It has to be positioned on the outside of the house to achieve the required height for the winding gear, and is needed to allow the applicant’s wife a better quality of life.

 

GB:   it is needed to allow access to the upper storey of the house.

 

PB:  AM is quite right – the officer recommendation is the right one – but as human beings, Members have to make a difficult choice between strict planning guidelines and humanity.  The street scene is not exceptional – not a Regency terrace – but it’s true to say the lift will stick out like a sore thumb.  Anything that can be done to soften this should be done.  Is inclined to support the proposal on humanity grounds, particularly as there are no objections from neighbours for that reason.

 

MC:  has read all the papers and accepts what other Members have said.  Agrees that this is not a flattering photo, that the street is not special, and that there are no neighbour objections.  Notes that the house itself isn’t parallel to the road – it is at an angle – and wonders if that will help or hinder the effect of the lift shaft on the street scene.  Thinks it will probably take away some of the impact, and this is an important consideration.  Is minded to support.  Officers have to go with policy, but it is alright to make exceptions at times.

 

CS, in response:

-       to HM, regarding the cladding, if Members would like this to be altered, it can be delegated back to officers for discussion;

-       to AL, regarding a condition to remove the lift when no longer needed, officers consider that this will need a 106 agreement because of the harm to the building and the special circumstances of the applicant.  This would also need to be delegated to officers to discuss.

 

BF:  the danger with a 106 is that if the applicant moves, a prospective buyer may actually require this additional facility and want to retain it.  Would a 106 agreement mean that the lift has to be removed when the applicant moves?

 

CH:  would like clarity re the cladding.  If it has been demonstrated that black glass is the best material to use, doesn’t want the Committee to give the impression that it objects specifically to that;  just to request that the cladding material be looked at again.

 

GB:  would imagine that one of the reasons for the black glass being chosen, other than it being reflective, is that it will make it impossible to see what is inside the lift, while letting in sufficient light.  The applicant will not want to be seen from the street, and this cladding is secure in that sense.

 

PT:  wonders whether we could condition some sort of opaque cladding and windows inside, obscure get giving light.  There are all sorts of things to be considered, and a good architect will be able to give a lot of guidance.

 

CS, in response:

-       to BF, re the 106 agreement – once the property is sold, the future of the lift will be dictated by the terms of the 106; a legal agreement is a sure way to tie this up;

-       regarding the glass, presumes the reflective glass is for privacy; the applicant has stated that while he is happy to consider alternatives, he will require privacy.  He is open to discussion.

 

SW:  is with CH on this.  It should be left as is – dark glass – unless officers have real difficulty with it.  They don’t appear to, and the applicant will have taken privacy into account when choosing the glass.

 

LS:  regarding a condition requiring the removal of the lift when the current occupants move, this is unnecessarily restrictive.  We have an ageing population, and there could be a demand for properties for people with health and mobility issues.  We need more properties of this kind, not less. 

 

BF:  would a 106 agreement make it mandatory to remove the lift on selling the house?  This would be the wrong thing to do – the property may be attractive to some people with the lift in place.

 

GB:  but as it contravenes policy CP7, it should only be considered for temporary permission due to the special circumstances of the applicant.

 

CS, in response:

-       the issue is the level of harm the officers have identified with the structure which Members feel is outweighed by the special circumstances.  This needs to come through in the decision, and a legal agreement is the best way to tie it up for the future.

 

PT:  there may be no need to refuse it in the next five, ten or fifteen years.  By then, the council’s policies may have changed. The legal agreement mustn’t tie things up too tight.

 

AL:  if the removal was conditioned with a 106, what would happen if a future owner wanted to retain the lift?  Could they reapply for permission, and would that override the 106 agreement?

 

CS, in response:

-       they could apply for the same proposal again, it would be considered on its merits.  Any legal agreement would run with this application and this permission.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Members are taking the personal circumstances of the applicant into account and coming to a different conclusion from officers.  This is at the Committee’s discretion.  If permission for this proposal is given, it should solely for this applicant – hence the legal agreement – as it will not be a good addition to the property.  It could be varied in the future, but this decision cannot stray beyond this applicant’s own personal circumstances;

-       the proposal is contrary to policy.  Members are weighing up the scheme and thinking it’s OK, but this decision needs to be justified and a 106 agreement is the way to do that.  Something needs to be added to the decision to show the reason why that decision was reached;

-       the decision needs to reflect the debate, show that Members have weighed this proposal in the balance, recognised that it is contrary to policy on design grounds, but there are particular reasons to support it.  A 106 agreement will cover this.

 

PB:  the location is critical here, and has had an impact on his decision.

 

CH:  there have been one or two other situations where something similar has cropped up, and formal discussions with officers and Members outside the meetings have been held to see how to deal with them.  There are cases where officers have no option but to refuse an application.  Some clarity for Members would be useful.

 

GB:  every application is considered on an individual basis; it is difficult to have rules on this.

 

MJC, in response:

-       that is a valid point, but officers could have come to a different conclusion – policy allows for this.  In this case, however, they feel that the benefits don’t outweigh the harm; Members don’t agree.

 

PT:  there are likely to be more and more application of this kind.  Each situation needs to be assessed on a general basis.

 

GB:  that is for officers to do.

 

KS:  there are specific reasons why this application could be permitted which would not be acceptable elsewhere, such as the streetscape, or if it was a listed building or in a conservation area.  Each application is considered on its own merits.  A strong reason to support this scheme is that there are no objections from neighbours – this is significant.  It is also significant that the addition to the house will only be temporary, for as long as it is needed, to be secured by a legal agreement.  These are the reasons why Members are prepared to go against officer recommendation.  The other side of this is that it will make a significant change in the street scene, and people may wonder why it has been done.

 

BF:  a 106 is a legally binding document.  It is common sense that when in the future this house is put on the market with a lift in place, that may be a marketing feature and the very reason why someone will want to buy it – more and more people are going to need this sort of facility.  Making its removal a legal requirement  is foolish.  And it is on the outside of the house because there is no room inside.

 

GB:  the next owner of the property could re-apply for permission.   106 agreements apply to all sorts of things and are legally binding.

 

CS, in response:

-       this issue has been considered by officers, who have had discussions with legal officers and the applicant, but is slightly vague at this stage.  Because of the harm the proposal will do to the property, it is of paramount importance that  it be removed in the future when no longer needed.

 

DS:  this is a case of humanitarian issues against planning issues, but would Members be taking the same view if the property was a listed building?

 

GB:  this has been covered already.

 

MC:  feels this discussion is being made more complicated than it needs to be.  Taking into account the lack of objections, the location, and the 106 agreement, Members need to make up their own minds.  Has made his mind up and is happy to go to the vote now.  Members should not worry too much about the future, but put a lid on it now.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

13 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on move to permit, with 106 agreement, and delegating to officers further discussion about cladding materials

13 in support

1 abstention

PERMIT