Agenda item

EP introduced the application to build a single-storey dwelling between two semi-detached, two-storey properties on Bouncers Lane.  The area is characterised by semi-detached dwellings, making the proposal out of keeping, cramped, and contrary to the SPD on garden land, as outlined in the report.

Public Speaking:

Mr Justin Laurence, applicant, in support

Has taken all officer comments on board regarding the street scene, taking account of the location in the street.  The previous comments of the Architects’ Panel have been taken into consideration, and neighbours and parish council are fully supportive of the scheme.

Councillor Payne, in support

Has been asked to bring this application to Planning Committee because of a difference of opinion on the impact on the streetscape.  This is the third version of the scheme, with changes to the design requested by the planning officer.  The Architects’ Panel commented previously that the design was acceptable in principle – innocuous and acceptable - and supported the application. The second application was withdrawn, and the design further modified with the help of the planning officer. As noted by the office, Cheltenham cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of building land, and the NPPF therefore promotes a presumption in favour of development unless the impact significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. Regarding the impact, it is important to consider the setting: the report references Page 33 of the SPD, relating to the rhythm of the street scene, and in particular the 12 semi-detached houses on the west of Bouncer’s Lane, originally built with a clear pattern and separated by large gaps.  Now, however, five of the 12 dwellings have significant side and/or rear extensions, which although well-designed and constructed have obliterated the gaps.  There are over 100 dwellings in Bouncer’s Lane, demonstrating a wide range of sizes and styles, including single-storey dwellings, the WI Hall, Prestbury Hall, and most of St Mary’s School.

The officer report comments on the impact of the dwelling on neighbouring properties, referencing Policy CP4, but has never met an applicant who has taken the concerns of his neighbours to such length – has visited every neighbour who may be affected, none of whom have objected – the views of 31 neighbours should carry significant weight under the Localism Act.    There are no highways objections either. 

As a ward councillor, is passionate and protective of his ward, and has been critical of certain developments in the past, but has no hesitation in supporting this one.  There is no substantive evident to support the view that this development will have significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the neighbourhood. It is sustainable and well-designed, and demonstrably respects its setting. 

Member debate:

PB:  has sympathy with planning officers having to interpret applications in line with planning policy and guidelines; Members are more lucky and can take different views.  This is a substantial plot, the design is contemporary and good.  Will move to permit the application; it has great councillor and local resident support.  It would have been easy for them to oppose it but they haven’t, and there is a finite amount of building land in Cheltenham.

SW:  also supports this scheme.  Would have preferred to see a pitched roof.  Officers would have accepted extensions to the two houses on either side of the plot, but this would not help with the town’s housing need.  The houses here are almost identical; this proposal is different but of good design, which is more important that worrying about whether it fits in.  Something a bit different is needed along this road; is erring towards voting to permit.

BF:  supports the officers here.  Knows Bouncers Lane very well, and recognises that there is some diversification and change over the yeas, but this proposal is out of place.  The semi-detached houses may be altered but they are still semi-detached houses.  This is a detached bungalow, taking garden from its neighbours to make it viable.  It changes the balance of that side of the road, which is predominantly semi-detached houses.  It is a nice design – but not here.

HM:  has no problems with developing this site sensitively, and the houses either side will have smaller but still good-sized gardens.  There are examples of similar small dwellings elsewhere in town, and these are the kind of properties we need – bungalows suitable for elderly people, in a highly sustainable location, close to buses.  Personally doesn’t like the design but will vote in support.

PT:  agrees with BF.  Also knows Bouncers Lane well, and this proposal doesn’t seem right and stands out.  Why not a chalet bungalow with a pitched roof?   Will not support it.

CH:  also knows Bouncers Lane well.  The plot can take a house but doesn’t find this design appropriate.  Looking around town where buildings like this are fitted in, in most cases they stand out.  This proposal  sits behind a hedge.  In some respects, it is difficult to say it will detract wildly, but it will be obvious that there is a house dropped in and hidden.  It detracts from the semi-detached houses, and sits uncomfortably in the location.  Will support the officer’s recommendation.

EP, in response:

-       The SPD is purposely designed for this type of scenario – where there is a dominant patter of development, to avoid deviation from that;

-       If Members are minded to approve, it would be helpful to know why they feel it is acceptable to make an exception to normal policy requirement.

SW:  we need more houses.  This is a significant plot – a property can easily fit in there.  Officers say the existing houses could be extended but that wouldn’t held the housing need.  We need more development.  This is only one property.

PT:  was it suggested that the proposal could be a chalet bungalow or have a pitched roof?

EP, in response:

-       Had a series of discussions with the applicant, including a scheme for a pitched roof.  From an officer perspective, it is about analysis of the character of the area – the concern is that the gap between houses, which is characteristic of the area, will be filled.  A pitched roof would make is a mini-version of other properties on the street, which would be jarring.

PB:  the advice for planners is always to consider each application on its merits.  Officers consider proposals against  policies, and the wording of particular policies allows the leeway to look at each on its merits.  This plot can take a building.  It is a subtle addition to the street.  The people in the area support it, and residents like it.  Will therefore struggle to vote against it. 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

7 in support

8 in objection

NOT CARRIED

Vote on PB’s move to permit

8 in support

7 in objection

PERMIT