Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

LW: Introduced the application as above. She explained that the proposal was for the erection of two and single storey side and rear extensions and various external alterations to the existing building. It was at the committee at the request of Councillor Barrell due to the contemporary design and impact on the conservation area.

In terms of background, she highlighted that the application follows the withdrawal earlier in 2019 of two previous planning proposals for the site following concerns from officers.  She explained that officers had assessed the impact on the conservation area, the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties. She acknowledge that it was a large extension, however,  she considered the site wide and deep enough to accommodate it. She confirmed that the property is located within the Central Conservation Area and the existing building is an example of a late Arts and Craft style dwelling. 

John Clarke, neighbour in objection

Mr Clarke felt that there was no planning gain from the application and felt it was purely a speculative development to add value through the planning system. Additionally, there would be considerable loss to the conservation area. As per the comments by objectors they felt that the extension would detract from the character of the area. He highlighted that the existing site footprint would be almost doubled by this application which he considered to be too large for this sensitive site. He acknowledged that the Parks Conservation Area Plan protects and promotes houses in large open mature garden settings and he felt that this application visibly builds on garden land close to the street frontage and closes down open views to Harefield Road and as such detracts from that objective. He highlighted that the house is one of 6 arts and crafts houses whose street frontages have largely been unchanged over the last 100 years, as such, this development would be a fundamental departure from that principle. He noted that the conservation area seeks to protect buildings  of distinction and felt that this development would destroy that. He was also concerned that this would set a precedent for further development of this scale in this area.

Councillor Harman, in objection

Councillor Harman felt that this was a significant application for the future of Painswick Road. He acknowledged the objections from other residents and in particular the objection from St Phillips and James Residents Association with regards to the excessive enlargement of this property and the alterations to the appearance of the street scene. He felt that the revised application did not address the core issues of concern residents had. 

DB: Clarified that she hadn’t taken personal view on the application but referred it to committee due to the concerns of residents and the residents association.

BF: Believed that there is a planning gain from the development and this proposal was better than building a separate dwelling in the garden. He reasoned that a number of properties on the street didn’t fit in with the arts and crafts style.

CC:  Confirmed that it is an arts and crafts property but a very late example. He confirmed that there aren’t strict periods of architectural styles they can overlap, and this was an example of modernist architecture coming in. Its an unlisted building with the conservation area and identified in the conversation area as making a positive contribution to the conservation area.

SW : Believed it fits well within the site and is an interesting design.

RH: Concerned on planning view that garden would be substantially smaller, however, she queried whether with the garages coming down the garden would be larger than it is now?

DB: Acknowledged that the whole of Painswick road  had different styles and period properties. She further noted that the arts and crafts garage would be coming down and this actually had an apple store above it.

JP: Believed it to be a fascinating house and interesting design that reflects the arts and crafts style. Agreed that it sits well within the plot that is sufficiently large enough not to be overwhelmed.

LW in response:

-       Advised that the garden size post development would remain largely the same.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT