Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report relating to a link-detached property located within a residential area on Glynrosa Road.  The applicant was seeking planning permission for a two storey front extension, single storey rear extension and a first floor side extension over the existing garage.  The application was at committee at the request of Councillor McCloskey who raised concerns regarding the scale of the proposed development, subservience and the impact on the character of the surroundings. These concerns were also raised in a Parish Council objection.

Pictures and diagrams were shown.  The Officer stated that key planning concerns were the design, the impact on the character of the area and the impact on the neighbouring amenity.  However having taken all these into account, together with the concerns of local residents,  the Officer considered the proposed development to be compliant with policy and recommended to permit.

Public Speaker, Mr Andy Train, was invited to speak in support of the application and made the following points:

·         His family moved to Cheltenham in 2014 and established a successful business employing over 130 staff locally.

·         Family consists of 5 members who were outgrowing space in current house.

·         No spare room for visitors or for being able to care for elderly sick relatives in the future.

·         Cannot afford to move to a larger 5 bed house.

·         The current homeworking requirement put extra pressure on space available which proved very difficult in running a large business from home.

·         If unable to extend may need to move out of Cheltenham, relocating the business.

·         Very much like and want to support the local area and its amenities.

·         Fully understand concerns of neighbours and parish council and would work closely with them to minimise disruption during construction, with no wish to impose on their happiness or have negative effects on the local surroundings.

·         Feels application in line with other similar extensions in the area.

A member asked if any tests been carried out on loss of light for the neighbours, to which the Officer replied that there were three windows in the side elevation of the neighbouring property.  One was a frosted landing window; the other first floor window was a secondary bedroom window which passed the light test, and on the ground floor the third window failed the 25 degree light test but there were two significant openings to the same room that would not be impacted by the development.

A member raised a point of clarification in that he explained that he called the application to committee to allow time for the objections from the Parish Council to be received as the Parish Council had discussed this matter but the comments arrived too late and the Officer was unaware they were coming.

The Chair opened up the matter for debate.

·         A member wished to view the photos once more to show that the 10 houses in that road were built in identical style and questioned, from the members’ stance in the previous debate, that the proposed extension would not be in keeping with the design of the houses in that road and that consideration should be given to the impact on the neighbouring area. 

·         Policy D1 was quoted, stating it required extensions and alterations of existing buildings  to avoid causing harm to the architectural integrity of the building and a member felt the extension over the whole garage of an interlinked detached house was not compliant and proposed Policy D1 as grounds for refusal.

·         There was a little bit of confusion over drawings as front and back of the houses looked very similar. 

·         The question of the importance of subservience was asked and the Officer explained that Cheltenham’s Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Alterations and Extensions, specifically talks about the need for subservience in relation to semi-detached properties, whilst this property was detached it had still been considered. The officer explained that the extension was set in from the rear and side elevation and the overall roof height of the proposed extension was lower than the existing ridge height, and concluded that officers had considered the proposal to achieve a suitable level of subservience.

There being no further comments or questions the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to permit.

For: 7

Against: 2

Abstain: 1

GRANTED