Agenda item

20/02249/FUL Adey, Gloucester Road, GL51 8NR


The Planning Officer presented the report relating to the insertion of windows into the building of Adey Ltd, Gloucester Road.


Councillor Willingham as ward member was invited to address the committee and made the following points:


·         He did not wish to support a refusal, but to ask the committee to add one extra planning condition, that being to require frosted glass in the windows on the elevations facing Cobblestone Way and The Crescent.

·         Every single objection related to being overlooked and loss of privacy and this condition would give due regard to the residents’ Right to Privacy and Right to Peaceful Enjoyment.

·         Being overlooked and invading privacy, breached residents’ basic human rights, but with this simple win-win condition the applicant could have their windows and the residents would have a greater feeling of privacy.


In response to members’ questions, the Planning Officer confirmed:-


·         The direction of elevation on the plans had been incorrectly annotated.

·         The ground floor windows were approximately 16.2m to the rear elevation of The Crescent as it bends and approximately 9.3 m to the boundary wall and just less than 5m to the rear boundaries in Cobblestone Way.

·         All ground floor windows were permitted under permitted development rights.

·         Comments from the Police no longer appeared in reports due to the reduction in crime liaison officers, so schemes were prioritised, so there was no advice from a security point of view on the type of glass to be used.

·         The applicant’s building was there when the Travis Perkins site was being re-developed for housing and it was the same business as in 2009 when it was permitted B1 office with light industrial use and again in 2013 upon purchasing  car show room on that site it was also permitted B1 usage.  

·         The windows were being put in for existing office use to provide natural light and outlook. Obscured glass was discussed with the applicant, but the applicant was not forthcoming with this proposal.


During the member debate the following points were made:-


·         Concern from a security point of view that glass at ground level needed to be of a different specification and that this security point was not being addressed by the Police.

·         The applicant was a good local employer trying to make the working conditions for its employees better with more daylight.

·         Internet research highlights the benefits of daylight for office workers, but whether that from clear or frosted windows probably did not matter, and the outlook to a high fence was probably also not that beneficial.

·         Important to encourage local employers to stay in town and so needed to balance business and residential needs, ie. nice to look out of an office window verses loss of privacy of nearby residents.

·         Frosted windows would still give daylight, maybe with an opening for fresh air and hoped employer would be amenable to this.


There being no further comments or questions the Chair moved to vote on the addition of the extra condition for the requirement for frosted glass.


For : 11

Against : 0

Abstain : 0


Agreed unanimously


The Chair moved to vote on the motion to permit with the added condition as above.


For : 11

Against : 0

Abstain : 0


PERMITTED unanimously

Supporting documents: