Agenda item

With the agreement of members, the Chairman proposed altering the running order of the meeting, to allow applications with public speakers present to be considered first.

GD introduced the application as above, with a recommendation to approve for reasons set out in the report and report update.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Baker.

Public Speaking:

Mr Harrison, neighbour in objection

The five main reasons for objection are set out in his letter.  Firstly, despite his property being directly overlooked, has not been consulted, nor has a site visit been made, contrary to recommendations in the NPPF.  Secondly, the first floor windows will give a grandstand view of his garden; two are 7.5m from the boundary – 10.5m is the prescribed minimum distance – and the overlooking, loss of privacy and visual intrusion will have an adverse effect on his amenity. Notes a condition precluding a potential balcony on grounds of CP4, but this could apply equally to upper floor to ceiling windows and door as to a balcony; this loss of amenity is contrary to National Sustainable Development Strategy, NPPF, JCS, Local Plan, and SPD for Residential Alterations and Extensions.  Thirdly, fully glazed gable three times the height  of the existing bungalow is  not subservient but will dominate,  contrary to the SPD.  Fourthly, modernist, fully-glazed gables are in marked contrast to the traditional forms and fenestrations of The Avenue, not tailored to the location. The scale, mass and form don’t respect the site and its surroundings, and thus is not in keeping with the JCS and Local Plan. Lastly, there is a shortage of single-storey accommodation in Cheltenham, for elderly and disabled, and this conversion would therefore be counter to the County Council’s ‘Understanding Cheltenham’ report and ‘Quality of Life’ objective of the NSDS.  Hopes that Members will apply clear, policy-led principles when making their decision, and respectfully requests that the application is refused.

Member debate:

PB:  asked for this application to come to Committee for a decision due to concerns about the potential impact on the bungalow next door.  Members will have seen this on site, and can make their own judgement.  The speaker lives in Charlton Park Gate, where the houses have staggeringly long gardens and views to the Cotswolds scarp – therefore struggles to take seriously the issue of overlooking.  It’s true that there isn’t the required 10m gap to the boundary, but there is at least 60m from window to window.  Cannot see that this will result in loss of amenity or privacy.  On Planning View, considered the impact on the neighbouring bungalow to be marginal.  There is a garden to the other side, so the proposal is not going to have any severe impact.  Regarding design, this is always emotive and subjective.  The Avenue is a very nice road to live in; many of the houses have been modified, extended, changed – it’s what people do.  The road is characterised by good-quality design – the speaker suggested that the proposal doesn’t work in this location, but would not agree.  It is next door to a very good design, which is a good addition to the street scene; the proposal is good too, and will work well in this location.  Is happy to agree with and support the officer recommendation.  Notes the speaker’s comment that if a balcony shouldn’t be permitted, neither should the large windows, but there is a difference between a balcony, where people sit out for long spells of time, and a bedroom window, from which they will just take a cursory look.  Commends the design and is happy to support.

PM:  is surprised to note that three of the applications tonight are to convert bungalows into houses.   Notes that the report states at Para. 6.17 that there are no specific policies in the JCS or Local Plan relating to the protection of bungalows for the elderly.  The elderly will make up 20% of the JCS population by 2031; the figure is currently 13% of the population, so this represents a 50% increase.  To ensure older people who may wish to downsize are considered, we need smaller, more accessible accommodation.  Building should not just be about new houses; we should have concern for the number of bungalows.  Have there been any conversations about policies to preserve bungalows?  This is an overarching concern with all three of the applications tonight, though not so much with 8 Horsefair Street, which is not elderly-friendly. This bungalow, however, is eminently suitable for elderly people to retire to, which makes its loss disappointing. 

GB:  notes PM’s comments regarding the protection of bungalows.  It is something planning officers may be able to look into ***.

MC:  has no particular problem with this application per se, but  has one point to raise, which would equally apply to any garden grab development which will have an effect on the highway/footway.  In his own ward, a large percentage of case work is concerned with damage to footways etc, caused by contractors, delivery vehicles and similar – and when any attempt is made to rectify this, is told it is nothing to do with Planning, but is a County Highways matter.  Would like to explore adding a condition to applications whereby a contractor is liable to make good any damage which results in people not being able to use the footways, not leave it to be mended and paid for out of the public purse.

GB:  is MC asking for such a condition on this particular application?

MC:  if there is a footway, would ask what sort of plant is likely to be used, and yes, such a condition could be added to this application and a general condition could be worded to add to future applications, to ensure no lasting damage to the highways.

SW:  reinforces MC’s comments.  As county councillor, all his local highways money is spent on repairing footpaths damaged by contractors.  This type of condition needs to be included as standard, going forward.  Regarding this application, went on Planning View, and would make the same comment for all the applications being considered tonight, converting bungalows into houses.  Has sympathy for the resident at No. 27, but not for other complainants who live in two-storey buildings and are concerned about overlooking – they are in effect saying ‘it’s alright for me to see into your garden but not alright for you to see into mine’.

JP:  agrees with all that has been said, particularly with regard to the design of the property.  Can officers just give clarification on the question of the distance of the property from the boundary?  This property is at an angle in the plot, making it difficult to gauge.  Is 10m an average or a minimum requirement from the boundary under the regulations?

GD, in response:

-       To JP, a distance of 10.5m to the boundary is a rule of thumb, and 21m from window to window.  That distance is 72m in this case, so officers consider that a small amount of leeway on the 10.5m is acceptable here.

EP, in response:

-       In response to MC’s suggestion of a standard condition to make good the footway in the event of damage by contractors, has some concerns about how enforceable this would be on county-owned land.  Will take the suggestion away*** and have a conversation with the County as to whether a standard condition to that effect could be created, although this is not something which we would ordinarily do;

-       If there are concerns about construction, we would normally include a construction method statement in the conditions, although this wouldn’t usually apply to a householder application.  Works can be carried out on a house without planning permission, and it is for the County to take up any issues with whoever has done the work.

GB:  so we will not require such a condition in this instance, but officers are happy to have a conversation with the County about the possibility of doing something along these lines in future. 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT