Agenda item

JS introduced the application as above, to also include off-street parking to the front of the property.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey, and the recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

Mrs Maguire, neighbour, in objection

Is representing the residents at 81 and 81a Cirencester Road, who strongly oppose the proposal.  The application is misleading in its description as ‘alterations and extension’ to an existing bungalow. This is not a modestly-scaled extension but a complete redevelopment of a bungalow to a two-storey house, with two times the floor space of the existing dwelling.  Secondly, the application has incorrectly titled elevations.   Thirdly, the application and report fail to acknowledge the 15m tree within falling distance only 6m from the proposed rear wall, and does not provide the required arboreal assessment.  This being the case, would question whether the application should have been validated.  Fourthly, under permitted development, the bungalow could have been extended by 4 metres and dormer windows could have been installed, but this would not have caused any invasion of privacy – so to compare the proposed works to permitted development is irrelevant.  The proposal is a total redevelopment, with the ridge height increased by 2 metres, and the roof pitch steeper by 10 degrees.  The officer suggests that the new roof height will be roughly the same as the dwellings on either side, but it will not – it will be considerably higher than both, and the plans do not take perspective into account.  Most importantly,  the proposal will result in significant invasion of privacy and loss of amenity,  due to severe overlooking from the two large windows, giving an intrusive, direct and uninterrupted view into the most private area of the gardens of both houses, and the living room of 81A.  The newly-built large extension at 81A isn’t shown on the plans – it is only 19.5m from the rear of the proposed house.  Respectfully requests that Members consider refusing permission, as the application contravenes planning policies: it fails the 21m separation rule in accordance with CP4, and contravenes JCS SD4 and SD14 and NPPF Paragraph 127.

Member debate:

PM: wanted this to come to planning committee to allow Members to stand in street and view the site , and also to be aware that what appear to be two buildings in the garden of the adjacent Cirencester Road are in fact a sunken patio with barbecue.  81A Cirencester Road is the bottom house on the drawing, and has a substantial recent extension is not shown on the plan.  Was also keen for this to come to committee because there is quite a large tree which isn’t getting much attention.  It is not TPO’d, but on the question of permitted development, if a 4m extension was allowed, and building extended 4m further into to root system – what would the trees officer think about that?  The bigger question is that what can be done under PD would involve damaging the roots of the neighbour’s tree. This extension is 2.8m and the trees officer seems to be reasonably content that the root system will be OK, but it is a substantial tree and will be close to the building. We need to consider the properties of existing building and what it will look like extended.

SW:  this property is currently a bungalow, and on Planning View, looked to the garden opposite but  struggled to see the house with the trees in the way.  Yes, a house will be more visible than a bungalow, but people in two-storey houses are complaining about other people wanting something similar to what they have themselves – they already have to advantage of being able to look into the bungalow owners’ garden should they wish.  The bungalow-owners have now decided to alter their home.  If all the neighbouring properties were bungalows, it could be a fair argument, but overlooking two-storey buildings?  The house will be not much more visible than the bungalow.  Has no arguments against the officer recommendation.

DS:  notes that the house next door to the bungalow has parking space in the front, set into the bank.  If the ground is excavated for two more parking spaces, is there a guarantee that these won’t fall into the void?

PB:  it is important to be consistent in planning decisions, but takes a different view with this application compared with the previous one.  The window-to-window distance of the previous application was 80m; here it is 20m.  The bungalow would benefit from a significant renovation programme – fully supports this.  On Planning View, looked to the site from the two gardens on Cirencester Road – this is why Planning View is so important, to stand in the gardens and see the impact.  The redevelopment of the bungalow will cause the houses on Cirencester Road to suffer loss of amenity.  If Velux windows were being proposed, it would be OK, but this proposal will result in significant overlooking of the gardens and patio on Cirencester Road.  These are not massive gardens like those in Charlton Park Gate.  The proposal will result in loss of amenity.  Will not support it.

PM:  it is a shame that the application at 44 Ashford Road isn’t being discussed before this – it includes frosted glass at upper windows to prevent any overlooking of neighbouring properties.  Won’t repeat what PB has said – agrees with his comments.  This proposal will result in a 2.5m increase in the ridge height.  It changes the angles where the bottom and top of the window is, and these are significant windows, giving grandstand views to the garden behind.  Is minded to refuse.

JS, in response:

-       To DS, the excavation to the front will not result in any danger of the neighbour’s front garden falling – a retaining wall is to be built;

-       The ridge height is increasing by 2m – there is no denying this increase, but the roof height will still be commensurate with the size of dwellings generally, and within the range of dwellings in Horsefair Street;

-       There is no uniform style of architecture, and officers do not consider the increase in height to be too high.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT