Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, for the remodelling of this property.  It is at Committee in the interests of transparency, as the neighbour and only objector is a senior member of CBC staff.  The scheme has been revised in line with officer and neighbour concerns, and officers consider the form to be acceptable, with no adverse impact on the neighbouring property.  The recommendation is therefore to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Atkins, neighbour, in objection

Owns the only property to be directly affected by this proposal, and would ask Members to consider the officer’s use of design guidance when considering the application.  The proposed extension will be inconsistent with council policy on side extensions and Local Plan policies CP7 and CP4, suggesting that officers have not followed normal processes and  guidelines.  Have provided evidence of similar developments in Sandy Lane and other nearby sites, and reviewed over forty two-storey side extensions determined last year.  The vast majority required clear set-back and reduction in ridgeline height to comply with design guidance; each report emphasised the need to neither dominate or detract from the original building but to play a supporting role.  This requirement is not met at 68 Sandy Lane.  In addition, a gap of less than 2m would be maintained between the two buildings, further reduced by the projecting eaves.    The house and extension would occupy 88% of the site, a 21m two-storey structure of uniform height, width and massing on a 24m-wide corner site.  Consideration has not been given to the siting and design of the balcony, which will be close to the only bathrooms at No. 70, both of which have opening windows.  A person of average height standing on the balcony would be directly between both windows, and only 2m away.  In this quiet, residential area, bathroom and toilet noises will be clearly heard, and silhouettes of anyone using the bathroom clearly visible through the obscure glass, to the detriment of her family’s privacy and enjoyment of their house. This could easily be avoided through good design, and despite the addition of a small obscure glass screen, the proposed balcony remains in conflict with CP7 and CP4. Is keen to see a positive outcome and a more attractive with less impact on her family’s amenity.  Minor changes could significantly change the appearance of the extension when viewed against the parent house, allowing it to play a supporting role, and a more suitable location for the balcony would be the bedroom in the centre of the house.  Asks members to consider deferring their decision to seek such changes.

Councillor Harvey, in objection

Prefaced his comments on this application by apologising for trying to help Councillor Baker with refusal reasons on the previous application – was not trying to exert undue influence. Also thanked GB for observing a minute’s silence at the beginning of the meeting.

Is not against this planning application, but is supporting the residents of No. 70 in raising certain issues with the proposal.  The neighbour’s letter of 18^th March is intelligent and policy-driven, explaining their concerns. Notes that the applicants havenot spoken to the neighbours about their plans.  Plans can be confusing and put people off, but the NPPF is set out in clear, plain English.  Sustainable development is a mantra much heard at Planning Committee, and the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of such development – but a little further on it states that this type of development should be supported unless there are valid planning reasons in the Local Development Plan to say otherwise.  The mantra may be that sustainable development always comes with a presumption of approval, but the neighbour has provided valid planning reasons why this application should not be approved today.  Amenity covers noise, light and privacy.  The obscure glass panel on the balcony won’t stop neighbours from being able to see the silhouettes of children in the bathroom.  Would ask councillors to consider how they would feel if their neighbours were just 2 metres away and could see their silhouettes in their bathroom.  It may not be considered loss of amenity by officers, but the neighbours’ privacy will be taken away from both their downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom, regardless of any opaque glass.  Is not saying that the current owners are likely to observe what is going on next door, but they may move away.  Would ask councillors to give serious consideration to deferring their decision, to allow time for proper dialogue, taking into account the Localism Act; the architect has not spoken to the neighbours at No. 70 – there has been no discussion.  They have been consulted only in line with statutory requirements, but this is usually too late in the day to suggest any changes.  Is asking for deferral rather than refusal.  

Member debate:

SW:  is sure there have been many other applications where he has been very reluctant to agree to front-facing balconies of this nature – wouldn’t want to sit out and have the world drive past – cannot see the point.  On the issue of overlooking, would prefer to see a brick wall – something which cannot be seen through at all.  Is not happy with the opaque screen as proposed. 

PT:  may be old-fashioned, but there are such things as curtains to ensure privacy.

PB:  may not be the officers’ favourite person this evening, but is staggered by this recommendation.  It is almost doubling the size of the house – a massive extension – and the photos show that there is nothing else like it in the road - all the houses have space around them.  The proposed extension is not subservient, and it will be difficult to tell what is old and what is new.   Officers clearly feel they have scored a success by negotiating with the applicant to scale back the original design, but this is not a great achievement if the original design was so extreme, a gross over-development, as this was. The proposal still doesn’t respect the street scene or the other houses in the area.  We should defer, and give the applicants the chance to expand their home following good discussions with the neighbours.  There is clear scope for development to the satisfaction of all parties.  The neighbour suggested CP4 and CP7 as refusal reasons.  How can this proposal be said to complement neighbouring properties?  How does it reflect the character of the area? There is nothing like it in Sandy Lane.  Would like to refuse the application, but it should be discussed with the architect, officers and neighbours, in line with the Local Plan, to provide the applicant with a fantastic house.

HM:  supports PB; this extension is not subservient.  The single storey element at the front extends beyond the current building line, and the ridge  height is only minimally less than the existing.

KS:  doesn’t feel this proposal is subservient.  The balcony looks nice but doesn’t help with subservience – it is more a design statement.  Has sympathy with the applicant but wants the best solution.  This is contrary to policy.

BF:  the subservience requirement is for guidance, not mandatory, though for a number of years, officers have asked Members to refuse applications for extensions because they are not subservient.  Some policies are for guidance only, some are part of national planning law.  Is personally not a fan of subservience.  Knows Sandy Lane very well – no two houses are the same, and this is a good thing, much better that the uniform little boxes seen in modern estate developments  Would support a move to defer here but not a refusal.  There are many areas of Cheltenham which are not uniform.

CN:  is uncertain about the subservience issue.  There have been a number of cases lately, such as the recent application at Church Lane, which was rejected because the proposed extension was too large and not subservient.  Would also ask why only three letters were sent to neighbours asking for comments?  Why not more letters to residents along the street to see the overall feeling of local people about the impact of this proposal. If more letters had been sent, there would have been more response.

AL:  Sandy Lane can be characterised as houses on large plots with space around them.  This proposal which infills the area around the garage, appears as the continuation of the development and has the look of a terrace, which is out of character with the area.  If the gaps between the houses are made smaller, this character could ultimately disappear.

BH, in response:

-       Regarding the balcony, officers have not suggested that it will have no impact on neighbouring amenity, but do not consider that this will be unacceptable.  The privacy screen has been introduced in the revised plans, and officers are happy to recommend approval;

-       If Members are concerned about the privacy screen, and this is the only reason for refusal, a condition for a solid rendered wall could be added, which will remove the issue;

-       Regarding subservience, the SPD applies more to semi-detached houses, to maintain the space between them.  Officers consider that with a set-back of 1m, and a lower ridge height, this proposal achieves subservience;

-       Would add that the block plan suggests the extension is bigger than it actually is, as only part of the extension is two-storey. 

MJC, in response:

-       To CN, regarding neighbour letters, the local authority is required to do one of two things regarding notification of neighbours:  to write to neighbours who share boundaries with the application site, or to display a site notice.  For this site, only two neighbours share a boundary, with one further neighbour added for completeness.  The authority has fulfilled its obligation;

-       Ultimately, this is a minor application.  The reason why it is at Committee is known, but the approach is no different to the thousands that officers deal with each year, and the publicity undertaken is appropriate;

-       if a neighbour or group of neighbours is particularly concerned about an application, they will usually solicit other neighbours to comment.  The locality appears to be relaxed about this application.  Endorses BH’s comments and report – the proposed extension is OK for the area; it will impact on the neighbours, but will fit comfortably in the location;

-       regarding the suggestion of deferral, does not consider this will achieve anything, as the applicants have already made several concessions.  We have not heard their thoughts on this, and it would be unfair on them to defer – the application should be determined today;.  This application started out as a big scheme and has been negotiated down; the local authority needs to determine it.

BF: has two further points to make:  BH said that a solid screen could be conditioned, but conditions are appealable so this would not necessarily solve the problem.  If this is what the applicant wants, the decision should be made, yes or no.  Deferral seems the right solution, to give the applicants the opportunity to make changes – although they could have attended tonight.  Does not have any problem with the massing, only the privacy issue.

SW:  isn’t totally happy, but a totally opaque screen or brick wall would make it just about acceptable for him.  

CN:  is not totally happy with MJC’s response about the number of letters sent out in the public consultation process.  Is aware of other applications where this issue comes up, and people complain about not receiving any notification of proposals near to them.  If three letters is the right number in this case, and a strict approach is taken,  it could be said that 33% of those people have objected.  In view of the nature of the street – unique, and in a lovely part of town – more letters should have been pushed out.  There is not much cost.  Is a great believer in public consultation to move things forward.

KS:  took exception of the officer’s comments about the number of objections and that there are none from anyone else living nearby. The person objecting wants to find a solution, so why would they try to stir up the neighbours?  This is not fair on the neighbour; we cannot guess what the community feels.  Deferral is the best option - the objector wants a solution, and the applicant will want to get going with the proposal - but does not consider privacy the biggest issue. The balcony is so large, and faces the road, but it should be subservient.  Is content with the scale and massing, but the balcony should not be the key feature.  It should be at the back or on another part of the property.  Will support the move to defer.

MC:  was going to make the same point, and agrees with  CN about neighbour letters.

CH:  privacy is important, but what changes were made in mitigating that has detracted from the building itself.  The more he looks at the design, the more he agrees with BF – the architect has tried to make it subservient, and looking at it again, is not sure it needs to be made to look subservient. A screen may solve one of the problems, but a better design could be achieved.  The balcony is unbalanced and unattractive.  Subservience makes it look worse.

GB:  Members seem to be moving in the direction of a deferral, yet three people are still indicating they wish to speak.  Would request that they be brief in their comments. 

PT:  is not 100% certain why the screen has to be obscure.  If it was a side screen, with nothing towards the neighbouring house, it would seem a better idea.

PB:  this is an open forum, and Members are here to discuss planning applications – they are all entitled to have their say.  Officers don’t want a deferral and say a decision would be the fairest outcome for the applicant.  Officers recommended the scheme for permit, and had no idea what the opinion of the Committee would be.  In view of the groundswell of comments from Members, the proposal could be rejected, but it would be better to take all the comments on board and go back to the applicant.  The applicant could have come to Committee to speak – is surprised he is not here, in view of the intelligent opposition to the scheme.  Will still move to defer.

MC:  does not want to add to that.  Is happy to move to the vote.

Vote on PB’s move to defer

13 in support

DEFER