Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer presented the report relating to a two storey side extension, rear single storey extension and loft conversion with rear dormer to a semi-detached dwelling in Bournside Road.  The application was before Committee at the request of Councillors Barrell and Harman over design, impact on neighbouring amenity and impact on the wider street scene and because of the nature of the material being used in the dormer extension.

The ward councillor addressed members and drew their attention to the strong arguments put together by local chartered town planner on behalf of the objector.  Although recognising that the dormer was permitted development they still believed it contradicted Council’s policy.  It also had a big impact on the Hatherley Park development and the Friends of Hatherley Park were very much against it.  The ward councillor believed this extension would have a considerable impact on the objector and urged members to reject it.

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

·         Revised plans and drawings submitted on 10 and 16 March did not change the impact or design and therefore did not alter the Planning Officer’s consideration and thus the report was still published on 17 March.

·         A member asked when permitted development was adopted regarding dormers and whether this contradicted SD4.  The Officer replied that the GPDO was altered in 2015 and the residential alterations and extension guides in 2007/8, with the Cheltenham Plan adopted last year.  The JCS was adopted in 2017 but was open in design and up to Officers to determine the impact of neighbouring amenity.  The member commented that some policies may need to be reviewed if several years old.

·         There was no concern over shadowing from the dormer and no loss of light from the 2 storey side extension.  There was a significant gap and the 45 degree light test had been carried out. 

·         The choice of aluminium as the material was up to the applicant who wanted a contemporary design.

During the member debate the following points were made:-

·         The design was not good, the rear dormer window spoilt the design of the house and failed on SD4.  There had been many rear extension changes in this area, many also of a bad design and did not want to compound it. Suggested refusal on grounds of SD4.

·         Concerned about the elevation at the rear of building as it did seem an extremely large dormer window and out of proportion.  It would be immediately adjacent to other half of the property and be effectively like an observation tower into the neighbouring garden.  The neighbours would feel like they were being continuously watched and it would be a looming presence over the next door semi.   Others in the area had smaller dormer windows, with one exception.  The member thought this development could be permitted under permitted development and was impressed to read there were grounds to refuse it and not permit just because there were others in the area. He felt inclined to refuse given the effect the dormer window would have on the adjacent property.  His grounds for refusal being SD4 and SD1 as in the objection letter.

·         A lot of development in this area which could be seen as good use of what is there or as spoiling the street scene.    The use of aluminium could also look out of place here.  Felt that it was the size of the window that was the issue but the Officer confirmed the size of the window was not restricted under permitted development rights.

A member questioned permitted development rights when the window looked as if it went right to the very edge of the building.  The Officer replied that permitted development allowed 200mm from the eaves which is what was proposed in this application.  As long as the dormer did not interrupt the eaves and project from the rear elevation it would fall under permitted development regulations.

In response to a further question, the Officer said the Architects Panel may have looked at the application but had not provided any comments.

There being no more questions or comments, the Chair moved to vote on the substantive motion to permit as per the Officer’s recommendation, in the first instance.

For : 5

Against : 4

Abstain : 1

PERMITTED