Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Paul McCloskey, in view of the special features of the plot.  Officers have concerns about the impact of the proposed extension on the existing building and on the conservation area; revisions have been suggested, but the applicant wants the proposal to be considered as it is.  The recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Ms Lucinda Mongor, neighbour, in objection

Lives at Waterloo Cottage, one of three linked cottages built around 1815.  The application next door is for a 1.5-storey contemporary extension to replace the single storey conservatory.  This will impact on the conservation area – St Mary’s Charlton Kings was designated in 2009, and the adopted legislation specifically mentions Church Street for its historic buildings and architectural importance. The local authority has a statutory duty to ensure that the future enhancement and preservation of the area is taken into consideration when applications are assessed.  If permitted, this application will encourage other contemporary extensions, which will gradually erode the area, making the designation meaningless.   The owners of the three cottages were aware of these compliances when they bought their homes, and these should be upheld now.  A 1.5-storey extension is inappropriate in size and style, with conflicting roof form and dominance, detracting from the appearance of the historical cottages when it should in fact be blending in with the local character and not of a contemporary design which stands out as too modern – it should complement the existing cottage in material and design.  Strongly disagrees with the architect’s comment that the extension is insignificant compared to existing buildings, that it improves the general views, and that it will not be visible from the conservation area.  If built, its size and differing materials certainly will impact on its surroundings, and will not comply with the conservation mandate to ‘enhance and preserve’.  It will be clearly visible from Church Street and her own side garden.  Has no objection to the replacement of the existing conservatory as a single storey on the original footings.  Built of similar materials, it would enhance and preserve the existing buildings, within the guidelines of the conservation area and in line with character appraisals for the area. 

Mr Michael Lumley, architect, in support

Has made hundreds of planning and listed building applications over the last 40 years, and this is only the second time has has felt the need to address committee, having usually been able to agree design alterations with officers.  Feels the planning office has made an extreme and very subjective assessment of this proposal, and is being inappropriately protective of the conservation area – which goes against the planning principal that development should be permitted as long as it causes no substantial harm to the significance of the conservation are and buildings on the site.  The site is a barely visible secluded garden.  The proposed extension replaces a poor quality existing extension and masks another, using a contemporary design incorporating features of the original cottage, in particular the materials and pitch of the roof.  This has been a challenge as the cottage has a large, wide garden, but most of the rear elevation is occupied by an inappropriate flat-roofed, two-storey extension.  Officers have no issues with the plan form, siting, loss of neighbour’s amenity, or contemporary design, generally support the use of materials, and agree the removal of the present extension will be an enhancement.  They suggest that a high-ceilinged, single-storey, flat-roofed design will suit the applicant’s needs, but this is not the case.  The report lists a damning array of adjectives to describe the proposal, which basically come down to concern about the height and form of the roof part of the extension, stating the scale and height would dominate the row, detract from the original form, and not be subservient.  This is patently inaccurate, as the drawings and elevations show.  The pitched roof is hardly higher than the 1980s flat roof extension, and considerably lower than the main room of the row of cottages.  The pitched element is barely one fifth of the rear elevation, and the majority of the rear elevation will continue to be dominated by the 1980s flat roofed, two-storey extension. 

Councillor Paul McCloskey, ward councillor, in support

The applicants have lives in Charlton Kings since 1994, and in Church Street for 10 years.  Their son attends the local infant school, and will be able to walk to the junior school and hopefully Balcarras in due course – proximity to local schools is important.  They are not property developers, but undertaking this work because they have to.  The wooden structure in the garden is in urgent need of replacement – it is used as a dining room, playroom, social and entertaining room.  The current lay-out does not work, making it awkward to keep an eye on people and serve food.  From the kitchen, it is necessary to travel through the living room, through the hallway, up three steps and down three steps to reach the garden room.  The applicants would like to remove the garden room and add a large room across the back of the house, incorporating a kitchen and dining room, to make it easier to keep an eye on the children and enable easy transit from the kitchen to the dining room.  It is not about sightlines and subservience; it is about family life.  The applicants have family scattered across the country, and need space for when they come to stay.  This proposal includes a much-needed mezzanine sleeping area, which would be less imposing on neighbouring properties than a two-storey extension, and solve the predicament of not having enough sleeping accommodation when friends and family come to stay.  They want their extension to be sensitive to what is already there and not affect neighbours any more than can be helped.  The main part of the house dates back to the early 19^th century, and they would like to keep the old part old and the new part new.  

The NPPF states at paragraph 60 that planning decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles of tastes, and should not stifle innovation and originality, through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain styles; it is proper, however, to seek promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.   Charlton Kings is not Regency Cheltenham, and its local distinctiveness is the hotchpotch nature of the way the village has evolved – this application is consistent with that.  At paragraph 197, the NPPF reminds local planning authorities that the presumption should always be in favour of sustainable development.  This application seeks to transform two 19^th century cottages, subsequently combined into one and badly renovated in the 1970s, into a sustainable family home.  The 3D images provide a helpful view of what is intended.

Finally, Church Street is a one way street – no-one driving by will see anything of the extension.  It will not be visible from the church or graveyard.

Member debate:

PB:  concerning the party wall act, how is the owner of the cottage going to maintain the wall with the extension right up against it?

BH, in response:

-       This is not a planning issue; it is a legal matter between the owners.

BF:  likes the proposal; will support it.  All that Councillor McCloskey and the agent have said is true.  The agent refers to the officer report; notes that the officer states that the proposal won’t bring any public benefit – but no-one will be able to see it, it is invisible from the road.  It is below the height of the cottage at the front, and there is no  high ground around to see it from.  Has looked at the 3D drawings – likes the design, which is a barn-type of building, and superior to what is there.  The rest of the extension is below the level of the 1980s add-on.  The choice of materials is good, and personally prefers the pitch roof to the flat roof.  Will support.

PB:  is reluctant to extend the debate.  Agrees with BF.  Doesn’t get what officers mean about the incongruous roof,  which mirrors the adjacent house – this conclusion is wrong.  The objection from the neighbour is not a planning issue.  Regarding impact on the conservation area, there is no visible impact; the only real difference will be to the people living in the house.  Demolishing the existing extension and rebuilding the proposed will result in a big improvement in their quality of life.

AL:  likes the look of this, and the design.  Notes the extension is close behind the house next door which could cause maintenance issues, but recognises that this is not a planning issue.

SW:  this could cause major problems for No. 5 – if the guttering is overflowing, for example, what would the neighbour do?  Realises this is not a planning issue, but maintenance of the neighbour’s property will be impossible.  How can this be overcome?

MJC, in response:

-       Would just say, in light of earlier debates this evening, that officers consider there is a better way of doing this extension which will mean the applicants get the space they require and the officers are happy with the impact on the conservation area.  An extension could be added with a better relationship to the existing cottage – for example, by spinning the gable to present to the garden.  Would like to have had this discussion, but the applicant and agent were not open to negotiation.  Members can hear what he is saying or not hear, but genuinely feels that a better approach could be found.

BF:  would just say that neighbours can enter their neighbour’s property be arrangement to carry out repairs etc when necessary.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

6 in support (including the Chairman’s casting vote)

5 in objection

2 abstentions

REFUSE