Agenda item

  20/01004/FUL   Mendip, Tryes Road, Cheltenham

https://publicaccess.cheltenham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QCBJP7EL08300

The planning officer introduced the application, at Committee at the request of Councillor Harman and the residents’ association.  She showed Members various elevations and floor plans, and photographs taken from the adjoining property, looking towards the application site. The key considerations are design, impact on the conservation area, and impact on the neighbouring property.

Public Speaking

i.          Mrs Lovell, neighbour, in objection, said her family felt this proposal to be a step too far, with the two-storey extension resulting in substantial loss of light and overshadowing.  She understood that planners rely on the 45 degree light, but was concerned that this should be a rule of thumb and not followed slavishly.  She said the proposed extension will create a ‘tunnel effect’ on her property.  In addition, she believed there would be loss of privacy in her garden, and also the gardens and rear windows of houses in Painswick Road.  She felt that the consequence of repeated attempts to reduce the size of the extension to gain planning approval had resulted in a strange-looking, box-like dwelling, which would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.

ii.          Cllr Harman, in objection, felt that the speaker had put her case eloquently, and hoped Members would take her comments into account. He said he has visited the neighbour’s garden and noted the overpowering impact the extension will have – other Members have not been able to do this – and noted the neighbour’s comment about the impact on Painswick Road – this is not detailed in the report, but will clearly have a dramatic and devastating effect.  SPJARA has objected, and although some changes have marginally reduced the impact, this is not sufficient and the design solution is not aesthetically pleasing.  He hoped that the Committee will agree and refuse the application.

Member Questions:

In response to Members’ questions, the planning officer confirmed that:

-           The tunnel effect on light to the neighbouring property, with extensions on both sides, already exists, but it is felt that the first floor extension is far enough away from the window not to make it any worse;

-           The 45 degree light test for a door – the patio doors in this case – takes a centre point 1.6m from floor level and half way across the window to assess a pass or fail. 

-           The previous scheme was much larger, and following long and complicated discussions it was suggested that the application be withdrawn and a new one submitted, with subsequent re-consultation.  This was a neater was to deal with the situation.

Member debate:

Councillor Cooke said that as with so many applications, it is a balance of benefit between the applicant wanting more space and the effect on the neighbour’s property.  He felt that looking at the pictures, the patio doors will be substantially shielded, whether or not the scheme passes the light test.  The neighbouring garden and patio area will be shaded from the afternoon sun.  This extension will also have a small effect of people in Painswick Road, and bearing in mind the context in the conservation area, the over-development and the unacceptable effect on the neighbour, he cannot support the scheme.  He is prepared to move to refuse as over-development.

Councillor Barrell was also concerned about the overbearing effect on No. 11 and the residents of Painswick Road to a lesser extent; it is a very big addition.  Councillor Baker noted that the residents of Painswick Road have not objected, and said that if the rear of the properties face the south, the sunshine it receives will not be impacted by the development. He did not feel the proposal could be considered over-development.

Councillor McCloskey had visited the area, and subsequently looked at the Park Conservation Area document – he could find no mention of Tryes Road or anything which highlighted these houses.  He was therefore not overly exercised about the impact on the conservation area, as very little of it will be seen from the street, or from Painswick Road.  He noted the NPPF’s presumption in favour of development, and that the house clearly doesn’t suit a modern family’s needs in its current state.  In view of the applicant’s efforts to get the scheme right, and felt on balance, that it was not unreasonable.

The planning officer confirmed that the rear garden is south-facing.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT