Agenda item

18/00846/FUL 66 Townsend Street

Minutes:

 

 

 

 

 

Application Number:

18/00846/FUL

Location:

66 Townsend Street, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Two-storey side extension (revised scheme ref: 17/01303/FUL)

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

2

Update Report:

None

 

GD introduced the application as above, a revised scheme following the refusal of a previous scheme last November.  The recommendation is to permit, for reasons set out in the report, and the application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hobley, in view of neighbours’ concerns. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.  Having requested a Committee decision, KH confirmed that he would make some brief comments as ward member.

 

 

 

Member debate:

DS:  considers this can only be a good thing for the area – it will tidy up a building in poor condition.  We have been assured that, instead of being an additional bedroom for an HMO, the space to the side will be a garage – can there be a condition preventing it from being converted into another bedroom?  The proposal is for a three-bedroomed house not a six-bedroomed one.  As such, will vote in support.

 

KH:  a number of residents got in touch about this application, raising concerns about this property.  Explained to them that a lot of these objections could not be considered as relevant planning grounds for refusing the application, which has been very frustrating for the neighbours and for himself.  Neighbours are largely concerned with anti-social behaviour, which is likely to increase if the application is granted – but this is not a planning matter.  Has great sympathy with these neighbours in tightly-packed areas, and is concerned that the proposed garage may not accommodate a car.  Consideration for this has been made by officers, with a condition that the garage can only be used for a car and ancillary domestic storage.  If a condition could be included to prevent the garage from being made into a bedroom, we would need to ensure no internal door between the house and the garage at this stage.  Also ask for a committee decision as the neighbours asked for opportunity to speak – although they have chosen not to do so, as is their right.  Members also as many know that St Paul’s has problems with a proliferation of HMOs, which needs some sort of management.  Agrees by and large with DS, that this will be an improvement on what is there at the moment.  Has concerns about what will happen in long run but not for Committee tonight. 

 

JP:  as a point of education, and having no queries about this particular extension, what is the logic for always requiring that extensions are set 1m back from the pavement, when the space could be better used within the extension?  Understands this has something to do with the need to be able to ‘read’ the original building – which might not be quite so clear otherwise?

 

KS:  regarding a possible garage condition: if we require it is used for parking only, will that be enforceable?  How will we know if the occupants are using it for storage or for living space?  Looking at the dimensions of the garage and the small space between the houses, it may not be possible for a car to get in and out, resulting in the loss of a parking space in area where parking is already difficult.

 

SW:  if we don’t want the garage converted to living space at a later stage, requiring there to be no door between the house and garage wouldn’t work – this is often the case.  Is happy for this application to go ahead, but it would work better if the front wall was moved forward a bit.  Would be happy to see the frontage all in a line, and the applicant should be allowed to do this if it makes a better line.  If we could have a condition that this won’t be used for residential – storage/workshop OK, but not a living area – this would suffice for him.

 

PM:  recalls a garage at 24 Horsefair Street where the highway between two buildings required a build-out to allow it to be used.  Do we  need highways advice on this before moving forward?  Is intrigued about who would park in the garage anyway.  People are more likely to park in the street, and more likely to need the garage as secure storage for bikes etc.  There is history here – the previous application included a bedroom in the basement.  Would like a condition to ensure no-one attempts that again.  Is minded to approve; agrees with DS that the house is a blot on the landscape as it currently stands.  This can’t be any worse.

 

GD, in response: 

-       To JP’s question about set-backs,  the Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents state that an extension needs to be subservient to the existing house.  The SPD ideally  requires a first floor set back of 1m.  In this instance, the applicant was asked to provide this to ensure subservience, and this is what he came back with;

-       Regarding the size of the garage and a possible condition for it to remain a garage rather than be converted to a bedroom, the SPD states that garages are to be wide enough to exit the car from one side, and the proposed garage achieves this; a condition is included to ensure the garage cannot be converted without permission;

-       Highways officers were not consulted this time, as this proposal will not make any difference to the existing arrangement in highways terms; a visibility splay could not be achieved here and therefore the existing arrangement would apply;  

-       Regarding the use of the basement space, this is not part of the application.  How it is used is up to the applicant or owner of the property; it cannot be controlled by condition.

 

KH:  the garage is quite small and narrow; not likely to be big enough for a car.

 

DP:  why is it important that the extension should be subservient to the main house?

 

GD, in response:

-       It is our view as a local authority that it is important that extensions don’t dominate the original building, or do anything to be detrimental to its character or charm.  A large extension could overpower a building, and draw attention away from the existing house.  This is why policy and planning guidance is in place.

 

DP:  as GD has explained, this is ‘guidance’ and should be used on a case by case basis.  It is not appropriate here.

 

KH:  we need to determine the application as submitted by the applicant, regardless of what Members may think about the overall policy. 

 

GD, in response:

-       Members need to make a judgement call on what is before us, what the applicant has submitted.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

 

 

Supporting documents: