Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer presented the report as published in the agenda.

The objector was then given the opportunity to speak as follows:

-       Spoke against the application in July.

-       The revised plans have not addressed the loss of amenity for the neighbour with regard to the south facing window.

-       The fails the BRE by at least 10 degrees

-       There will be a loss of light to the south facing window.

The speaker on behalf of the applicant in support of the application was given the opportunity to speak as follows:

-       The extensions height width and depth have been reduced and the

-       Principal concern is the impact on the neighbour which the revised plan addresses.

-       BRE should not be used as can be interpreted flexibly.

-       The proposal will not effect the light levels of the objector as it is an L shaped room served by windows and patio door,

-       Revised design is further away from the boundary.

-       Emphasised that there has now been a site visit and that the officers are recommending that the permission is granted.

The matter then went to Member questions:

-       With regard to light test – as a result of the proposal the south facing window will now fail the BRE light test.  How much does it fail the test by? And how significant does the Officer think that it is.  The Officers response was that the south facing windows fail the light test.  There are 3 light sources 2 are not affected and the south facing window fails.

-       Clarification sought that if there is a failure of the light test is it a reason that the application can be refused.

-       How far is it from the south facing window in the neighbour’s house to the upstairs extension?

The officer then gave the following response

-       The BRE light assessment is not part of the policy but is referred to as guidance in the adopted Cheltenham Plan Policy as SL1. 

-       5.4 meters between the window and the first floor extension.

The matter then went to Member debate:

-       Congratulations to the architect and the applicant for the modifications that have been made, this is a very tight location and will have an impact on the neighbouring property.  Applicant has gone someway to addressing the problems.

-       Acknowledged the measures that have been taken to change the application, without being able to see the back of the house difficult to make a decision on this.

-       Concern was voiced about the light test and should not make the application subjective.  The light will be effected for the south west window.  Not happy that the light test could be used either to grant or refuse.

-       This is an application that is far more difficult this time as the applicant has done well to reduce the impact of what is proposed. Applicant has gone has far has they can to deal with the neighbours problems.

-       Lack of site visit is making this application harder.  The south west window will possibly be the primary illumination during the winter months.  With or without a light test there will be an impact on the window. 

-       Feels that this is a difficult application.  Interested to hear what the other Members have to say.

-       Applauds the architect for making the alteration, however concerns about the light test as not possible to quantify how much it fails by.  Light test more significant due to the direction that the property faces.

The Chair asked the Head of Planning for some advice.  He stated that it can’t be a definitive figure on failing the light test.  Basis of planning in this country is that we should approve things wishing to be built.

The Chair asked the planning officer for any further comments to which he explained about the light levels and how they would be effected by the extension. 

The Chair then went to the vote to permit:

For:6

 Against:4

Abstain: 1

GRANTED