Agenda item

 

Application Number:			18/00934/FUL
Location:	68 Sandy Lane, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	First floor front extension, single storey extension to the rear of the garage, first floor side extension, application of render and timber cladding and replacement windows and doors (revised scheme to previously approved application ref. 17/01984/FUL, changes to include an increase in the overall height of the first floor addition by approx. 400mm, removal of fascia/guttering detail and removal of first floor side elevation cladding) Part-retrospective.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		7	Update Report:		None

 

BH introduced the application as above, for planning permission for changes to a recently-approved scheme, originally a first floor front and single storey rear extension, first floor side extension, and remodelling of the property.  Permission for the majority of the works has been granted, and the current application is only concerned with the changes – the increase of approximately 400mm in the height of the first floor, and removal of fascia, guttering and cladding.  The application is part retrospective, as the first floor front extension has already been built at the height now being applied for.  It is at committee for transparency, as a senior staff member at CBC lives next door.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Atkins, neighbour, in objection

Is the owner of the property most affected by these changes, and frustrated to be making formal representations about a development not built to the consent granted.  At Committee last year, it was clear that the proposal would have considerable impact, but Members were advised that with careful control over detailed design and materials, a high-quality scheme would be delivered.  On this basis, they agreed to permit it.    The scheme has not been delivered with the careful execution required.  Understands that the new scheme is assessed as a new application, and therefore feel it fails to meet the council’s policy requirements as follows:  firstly, visual impact – this is an attractive, prominent corner plot, highly visible on a road used by many walkers and residents.  The increase of 0.5m results in an over-dominant extension, which   detracts from the street scene.  The extension becomes the focal point of the plot and breaks the roofline of he existing house.  Officers accept that this is an awkward relationship, but Policy CP7 requires a high standard of design, and this falls short of that. Supplementary planning guidance requires extensions to be subservient, not detract, and play a supporting role, but it is clear that the enlarged forward box of this extension is not subservient  - policy requirement is therefore not fulfilled, and this is not addressed in the report, although it was highlighted in two other reports of residential extensions on tonight’s agenda.  Secondly, loss of amenity:  on site visit, Members will have noticed that the additional height of the extension has impacted the light entering her kitchen – the obscure-glazed side window is the only direct light source.  Through-light from other secondary windows has no impact on the kitchen light.  Policy CP4 requires the protection of existing amenity, but the increase in height detracts from it.  It is described as an oversight, and stated that building to the approved plan will result in lower internal ceiling heights.  But the the majority of the structure is a balcony with generous internal height; achieving consistent internal ceiling height through to a balcony should not be adequate justification to contravene planning policy.  Members will probably be told that the additional height is marginal but it is not.  Two additional courses of blockwork change the design and appearance of the extension, pushing into the roof, causing additional impact on her home and the street scene.  The application is in conflict with local policies CP7 and CP4.

 

 

Councillor Harvey, in objection

Is chair of CBC’s audit committee and has been struck by the inconsistency in reports and officer advice tonight.  For the application at Townsend Street, subservience was clearly expected, so as not to dominate the street scene or change the character of the area.  Here we are considering a property at the bottom of an incline towards the AONB, and a proposal for an extension which is clearly not subservient. It’s clear that there was a lot of thought from Members when they considered the previous application,  and their concerns were largely mitigated with a good set of conditions. This current application sets a poor precedent – if you really want a development, ignore the conditions to protect neighbours, carry on with work – then apply for retrospective permission.  Would ask Members to reflect on this, and what message it sends to developers – go along with a thoughtfully-discussed planning permission, then slap in retrospective.  This proposal doesn’t comply with Policies CP7 and CP4.  Members are told to consider each application on its own merits, but there are inconsistencies tonight which could set a  precedent.  The neighbour has set out reasons why this application should be refused; policies CP7 and CP4 are there for a reason.

 

 

Member debate:

DP:  a question on detail:  does the change between the height of this application and the approved plans make any difference to CP4 and CP7?

 

SW:  remembers the two previous applications at this site; didn’t like the first one, but was quite pleased that the second one had addressed a lot of the concerns of neighbours, and the Committee was happy to permit it.  The applicant hasn’t done a complete switch round – but you don’t accidentally put up half a metre of wall.  On the concern about inconsistency, this evening there have been arguments about subservience -  but the previous application was what the applicant wants and has applied for; this isn’t, and this applicant should go back to the last plan as agreed.

 

DB:  a question:  if this application is refused, would the applicant have to revert to the last application granted?

 

PM:  was not present at either of the previous two committee meetings when the applications at this property were discussed, but has looked back at the previous minutes, in particular at the comments of Councillor Baker, who would normally speak on this if he were present.  He congratulated the architect on the second proposal which, while not subservient, was a better scheme and much improved on the previous one.  Looked at the site at the weekend and has read all the paperwork; is shocked at how big the ‘box’ on the front is – not in line with his definition of subservient.  Didn’t see round the back of the house, but struggles with this application, and also with the way the applicant has gone about this.  A previous adjustment to a kitchen window was needed; the plans were modified in the proper fashion, proving that the applicant knows the proper way to go about it, but the principle here seems to be – in the event of a cock-up, build it anyway, then go to planning department – why not look for practical solutions to make it work?  This is not our problem; it is their problem. Is inclined to require them to knock it down. 

 

JP:  the key words here are consistency and subservience.  The original form was not subservient, and the additional 400mm makes it more dominant; the side element is unbalanced and ugly.  Regarding consistency, recalls a similar situation a few months ago, where the building was put up higher than it should have been.  The Committee agreed that it should be taken down, and the same should happen here.

 

KS:  if this application was the original application, what would the officer recommendation be?  Are Members considering the difference between this and the extant planning permission or this and the house as it was before?  It looks like a new house in its own right – a super-big, modern house.  Would it be acceptable re. policies if it was the original application?

 

KH:  would remind Members of the parameters of what they are voting on tonight.

 

BH, in response:

-       The extant permission is the fall-back and still intact – so if this application is refused, the applicant will need to revert to that.  It is clear that Members are not being asked to consider the whole scheme tonight, just the difference between the permitted and the proposed schemes, and whether that difference is unacceptable in terms of design and impact on amenity;

-       Members have already accepted the original design as acceptable and the impact as not unacceptable; is the increase in height sufficient for them to refuse on either of these grounds;

-       Regarding subservience, it should be noted that this is not a traditional extension but part of a wholesale remodelling of the house.  This may not have been obvious on the site visit, as works have halted and scaffolding is still in place, but officers have taken the remodelling into consideration.

 

KH:  if this proposal was the original scheme, would officers have recommended it for approval?

 

BH, in response:

-       Yes, the proposal would have the same recommendation.  For the current proposal, the question is whether the additional height will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity and design.  Officers do not consider that it will, hence the recommendation to permit.

 

DP:  what is the difference in height between the permitted scheme and the additional 0.4m?  What is the proportion of the overall height?

 

KH:  Members have made some important observations on this, and appreciates the way in which those in objection are looking at it, but is not of the opinion that we should refuse.  Rightly or wrongly, the applicant has started building the scheme, but things don’t always work out as we think they will - he has realised that the original plans are not up to scratch, and is now seeking to redress that.  Appreciated the neighbour feeling that this will impact on their light, but the officers state that it will be OK, and not sufficiently impacted to make a difference.  Realises it is frustrating for Members if they don’t like the approved design, but we are not voting on the whole thing, only on the change.  It is important to bear this in mind when making the decision.

 

BH, in response:

-       The current proposed height is 5.65m; the original height was approximately 5.2m.

 

DP:  so the increase is less that 10%.  The impact of this will be marginal.  Notes the appeal decision at The Hayloft, the legal advice, and the costs decision.  This is a no-brainer.

 

PM:  has difficulty with that view.  Anyone can come with an application, have it approved, then automatically add on an extra 10%.  Is not convinced; felt the tipping point was reached with the previous proposal – Councillor Baker is minuted as struggling to support it, and being concerned about its lack of subservience.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

3 in support

7 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

CH, in response:

-       In the context of the debate this evening, Members would be looking to refuse this application on Local Plan Policies CP7 (design) and CP4 (amenity), and JCS Policy SD4 (design).  There are two elements here; are Members of the view that either design or amenity is the more significant issue?

 

DP:  is interested in what an appeal inspector would take into consideration – the overall design or just the changes from what has already been permitted? 

 

CH, in response:

-       she/he would only be concerned with the changes from the approved scheme.

 

KS:  regarding the impact on amenity, the neighbour says there will be loss of light from the kitchen; is this classed as a habitable room in planning terms?  Is the proposed extension next door contributing to more loss of light to the kitchen?  Would like to hear more about that.  Considers the design to be the main issue – scale, bulk, mass in this location, and the impact on the area.

 

DS:  if the builders have to alter the heights, at the end of the day will enforcement officers check that they have conformed with tonight’s vote?

 

BH, in response:

-       It was enforcement officers who invited the applicant to put in this retrospective application, and they will have to make the decision.  The applicant would have the right of appeal, against the decision tonight and any enforcement case;

-       Regarding light to the neighbouring property, a kitchen is considered to be a habitable room.  The neighbour’s kitchen window is currently obscure glazed, and a further light source on the rear element of the property is not impacted by the extension at No. 68.  Officers consider that that additional light source compensates for any impact on the obscure-glazed side window.

 

PM:  is vague on policy numbers, but can officers confirm that the concern that the additional 0.5m results in the extension cutting into the roof line of the existing house is included in the refusal? Regarding subservience, the eaves of the existing extension tuck in, but this is now awkward and not consistent with good design.

 

KH:  Members need to decide if the refusal is on design, amenity or both.  To recap, the policies currently being put forward are CP4, CP7 and JCS SD4.

 

CH, in response:

-       the  design element - CP7 and SD4 -  is sorted, but can Members articulate the specifics of the issue of CP4 (amenity)?  Is it just light to the side kitchen window or a wider issue?

 

KS:  is not sure we should include loss of amenity as a refusal reason.  Design, mass, bulk and scale in this location are the issues here.

 

KH:  the clarity we need is the specific grounds on which we are refusing the application – just design, or design and loss of amenity?  For design only, it would be CP7 and SD4.

 

KS:  formally proposes refusal on those grounds only.

 

Vote on KS’s move to refuse on CP7 and SD4

7 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE