Agenda item

 

Application Number:			17/01303/FUL
Location:	66 Townsend Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Two-storey side extension
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		0	Update Report:		None

 

GD introduced the application as above, for a two-storey side extension.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley.  The recommendation is to approve.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Patel, neighbour, in objection

Objects to loss of sunlight to his property resulting from the extension; the back of his property overlooks the railway bridge, so the front outlook is particularly important.  Also has concerns about the whole process with property landlords.  Living opposite this house, is aware of a variety of anti-social behaviour -  comings and goings throughout the night, car doors slamming between midnight and 6.00am – the police have records of previous tenants.    Struggles to keep the street clean, scrubbing it with bleach some mornings, and is concerned about the effect on his young daughter of living opposite this house.  The landlord won’t speak to him, despite there being no communication issues.  Is also concerned about the number of HMOs, in Townsend Street.  Parking is a big problem, and often ends up parking 2-3 streets away.  This proposal will mean the loss of a parking slot, making the situation even worse.  There is an increasing number of HMOs – with 60 houses, the street could easily end up with 150 cars.  Has a serious objection to this proposal for the number of HMOs, the anti-social behaviour of the tenants, and the loss of a parking space

 

Member debate:

SW:  has enormous sympathy with the speaker but unfortunately very little of what he has said can be considered by Members when judging the application. Can see that he is frustrated with the situation, but his concerns regarding the tenants’ behaviour are a police matter and cannot be taken into consideration.  Regarding the loss of light, the proposal would easily pass the light test, and is nowhere near having any impact on the property opposite.

 

KH:  asked for this application to come to Committee, because of the issues raised by the speaker, and  because he is ward councillor for the area.  Has not done an independent site visit, but works down the road and knows the area well.  BF is the county councillor for the area and is aware of the issues mentioned by the speaker; it is a shame that he cannot take part in the debate.  Members are always frustrated and annoyed that they can’t take the impact of parking into account when making planning decisions.  At the moment, the space this application proposes to build on is used for off-road parking; Townsend Street is an extremely difficult road on which to park.  It is not safe, is always busy, and because it was left out from the county council’s residents’ parking scheme, it has become the place for all the displaced parking from St Paul’s, causing real difficulties for residents of Townsend Street and the surrounding streets.  It is very important that we pay attention to what the objector has said; this proposal may result in the loss of only one parking space, but it is an extremely busy road.  The houses on this street, including this one, are small properties, but this small house is being made much bigger.  It will have six bedrooms; Bedroom 5 is incredibly small, and fitting a double bed into Bedroom 2 is ambitious.  The planning system doesn’t have regard for all we want it to; it should have regard for all we want it to do, for the people using the building in the future.  The house is clearly used as an HMO – there will be six or more people in this very small house, two rooms with en-suites, one bathroom to share – are these the living conditions we want for the people of Cheltenham? 

 

How close together the properties on this street are may not be a planning consideration but there are obvious problems regarding anti-social behaviour, usage of the property, sufficient noise inclusion, loss of amenity – there is nothing in place to protect the neighbours against this.  Realises the need to maintain a sense of balance – is please that something is being proposed for this building, which is in need of TLC.  Finds the situation frustrating as a local member – cannot support the application but is please someone will invest money in the building. 

 

It is a shame that the applicant is not present to better inform the debate.  Most Members are aware that there are discussions with planners and others regarding the possibility of an Article 4 directive, which will have an impact on HMO properties.  It is a future plan of the authority to bring this in in St Paul’s, which shows that this it an important issue to the local people who live there.

 

GB:  to confirm, the light test was discussed on site view, and all appropriate standards have been met.

 

GD, in response:

-       confirmed that the speaker’s property was visited on site view, and the light test was comfortably passed – there are no planning concerns in this regard;

-       regarding the house itself, it has been the subject of consultation with the council’s housing standards officer, with reference to the habitable space.  The appropriate standards are met;

-       the applicant is caught in the middle of the housing standards officer and the planning officer and has achieved a design which satisfies both, in terms of size of bedrooms and number of bathrooms.

 

SW:  realises that this is not a planning issue, but understands that an HMO for more than six requires extra planning permission – does this mean six bedrooms or six individuals?  This house has six bedrooms, but there could be double that number of people living there.

 

GD, in response:

-       a house lived in by 3-6 residents is classed as C4, a small HMO.  Change from a dwelling (C3) to a small HMO (C4) is a permitted development change.  The plans show six bedrooms, but if more than six residents live here, an application for a large HMO will be needed.  However, although the drawings show double beds in the rooms, there won’t necessarily be two people in each bed.

 

SW:  there is quite a big question mark over this then.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

GB:  Members need to provide reasons why the application should be refused.

 

KH:  his knowledge of specific reasons is limited.  Would suggest design grounds.

 

CN:  CP4 – safe and sustainable living – would be appropriate.

 

PT:  Also the fact that there are too many HMOs in the area.

 

CN:  CP1, CP4 and CP7 could all be used.

 

MJC, in response:

-       KH’s comments have clearly resonated, and officers can pick up on a few of his points.  He mentioned parking difficulties and the loss of a space on the street; this will add to the difficulties for future residents.  The high number of HMOs can also be put forward as a refusal reason;

-       These aren’t the strongest of reasons, but they are the will of the Committee, and if the applicant goes to appeal, it might be helpful regarding what CBC does with future policies and with Article 4;

-       Officers will craft a refusal reason based on displacement of parking, proliferation of HMOs, the type of environment being set up, and the fact that there are six bedrooms without planning permission – none of this is unreasonable.

 

PT:  saw the internal layout of the house – one room appears to be big enough for a double bed and nothing else.  These are not acceptable living conditions.

 

GB:  as officers have said, housing standards requirements are fulfilled, and MJC has helpfully offered an option for refusal.

 

CN:  reading MJC’s body language, wonders if he has any stronger ideas that might apply.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Is not aware of a different argument.  KH has made an articulate case.  Doesn’t necessarily agree with all he has said, and doesn’t know how well it will do at appeal, but the reasons put forward are not unreasonable;

-       CP4 and CP7, together with the NPPF requirement to generate nice places to live can all be used.  Suggests officers put the words together and run past the Chair and Vice-Chair before issuing the decision notice.

 

CH:  regarding housing standards requirements, in this case a number of very small bedrooms will be created.  If there were just one or two, together with communal living spaces, can see that this would be acceptable.  Abstained from the vote – could not see there was any good reason to object, although felt very uncomfortable about the building.  The total environment being created in the house is not conducive to people’s well-being, living on top of each other. Looking at the bigger picture, the effect this will have on the well-being of the people in the house will spill over on to the well-being of the neighbours, causing undue stress, which comes out in various forms.     Having abstained from the first vote, in the light of these further discussions, will vote for refusal on grounds of sustainability.

 

GB:  MJC has set out the reasons for refusal, and the Chair and Vice-Chair will take a view on these.

 

AH:  to build on CH’s comments, as a student, lived in a similar house to this and it was awful.  The residents had no quality of living, the environment was very stressful, there was no communal space.  We talk about ‘planning considerations’ regarding the physicality of the building, but there is a difference between a house and a home, and being able to park near one’s home is an important consideration.  It may not be a planning consideration now but is something that should be looked at in the future.

 

DS:  notes the suggestion that the refusal reasons are agreed by the Chair and Vice-Chair, but the Vice-Chair (BF) has not been part of the debate.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Suggests that KH is included as the relevant councillor;

-       A core planning principle of the NPPF is to create high-quality accommodation of good design and sustainable, this being better for the people who live there;

-       Will put together a refusal reason incorporating this and the other issues discussed this evening.

 

GB:  all agreed that GB and KH will agree the final reasons for refusal.

 

Vote on CN’s move to refuse

10 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE