Agenda item

21/01591/FUL 52 Fairfield Parade, Cheltenham GL53 7PJ

Minutes:

The Planning Officer introduced the report relating to single storey and first floor rear extensions and a rear dormer to facilitate a loft conversion to a two storey semi detached dwelling in Fairfield Parade.  The plans had been revised throughout the course of the application and the application was before committee at the request of the ward councillor.

Mr Jonathon Bardgett spoke in objection to the application. 

The Chair informed members that Cllr Maughfling was due to attend committee to speak in support of the objection posed by Mr Bardgett, but was unable to due to a positive Covid test.  Cllr Maughfling had though issued a statement, which the Chair hoped all members had read.  Members confirmed they had.

In reply to a member question, the speaker confirmed he lived at No.50 Fairfield Parade.

A member raised the question of when site visits would return as he felt this would have been most helpful in this application.  The Chair confirmed that this was in discussion and hoped it would be soon.   He agreed it was difficult to see some of these sites from a street view and that proper view from back gardens was beneficial.

A member questioned whether site visits would be reinstated soon enough to justify deferring the item until such a visit could take place.  The Head of Planning confirmed that the resumption of site visits was being looked at in consultation with Council’s Health and Safety Officer, but was unable to say exactly when they would restart and urged members to make a decision if possible.

Members queried if the light test was passed or not and requested another look at the photo of the neighbours looking in and clarification on the 45 degree light test.  Is it guidance not necessarily mandatory and it it fails then no.

In reply to Member questions on the light test, the Officer explained the light test procedure and that if more than 50% light was cut off from plan and elevation then this would be considered as an unacceptable loss of light and would be used as a refusal reason.   She continued that the light test was done on the initial scheme and had failed, so the applicant revised the plans and reduced the height and that subsequently passed the light test.

A member requested guidance on semi-detached houses and the maintenance of symmetry.  The Officer explained that the extension was to the rear so would not detrimentally impact on the street scene and public realm.

The Chair moved to debate.  One member had visited the site and had accessed the rear of the property with the neighbour’s consent and agreed that it was very difficult to assess without seeing properly.  He felt that if the application would not be out of time that it be deferred to the next meeting to allow other members to visit the site and if site visits were not reinstated before the next meeting that the neighbour would be happy to let members see the site from his rear garden. 

The Head of Planning stated that the period for determination had already expired on this application and an extension of time had already been sought to take to this Committee, so another extension of time would be needed if it was deferred to the next Committee.  He explained that there could be an appeal against non-determination, but if members felt they needed to see the site then it was justified in deferring it but was a risk against non-determination.   The speaker confirmed he was happy to accommodate members to visit his house and this would be organised via the Democratic Services team and the speaker.

Members were happy to travel independently to site visits.

The Chair moved to vote on the proposal to defer to the next meeting to be able to facility a site visit.

FOR :  8
AGAINST : 1

ABSTAIN : 0

APPROVED for deferral

Supporting documents: