22/0186/FUL 27 Hulbert Close, Cheltenham, GL51 9RJ
The Planning Officer, Claire Donnelly, presented the report, which related to a proposed new attached garage on a two-storey residential dwelling. The application was at the committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, due to the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, impact on the street scene, and turning a detached property to a semi-detached property, and the officer recommendation was to permit. There were no speakers on the item.
The Chair moved to Member questions and the responses were as follows:
• The Planning Officer confirmed that there was no policy requirement for an electric charging point in the garage.
• The Planning Officer clarified that the proposed doors would be 1.6m wide
• measured existing gap as 2.5m
• distance from neighbouring wall would be 100ml
• plans show that the guttering would go in that gap
• gap between guttering and wall would be very small, but they wouldn’t physically touch
• The Planning Officer clarified that while the existing car port was attached to the neighbouring house, the proposed garage would have a gap.
• There was not any way the committee can compel the applicant to do more than just leave a piece of wood up there with pitch on it. The Planning Officer responded that that is not a committee matter but a civil matter.
• The Legal Officer added that building regulations would deal with the suitability and legality of the build. Any ‘snagging’ would be a matter for the relevant parties.
There being no further questions, the Chair moved into the debate, where the following points were made:
• It is hard to call this a garage when you would struggle to get a car in there, though you could put two motorcycles in there.
• Serious reservations given that no car manufactured today would fit through the door, making it a social issue. Approval for wraparound extension mentions that car parking area will be kept available for such use at all times in perpetuity, to enable car parking availability without affecting the highway. This was a reason for planning acceptance, but it doesn’t apply as you can’t fit a car in there. Changes the appearance of link detached houses. Maintenance aspect also relevant, as they will need to go via the neighbour’s land to access the drains and more. Can refuse this on grounds of design, i.e. changing the street scene, and highway safety, as it will encourage people to park in the road more.
• There is a driveway, so plenty of off-road parking available. Not for us to decide what exactly they park in the garage, if anything. No planning reason to refuse it.
• The design leaves a lot to be desired, but it’s very similar to a lot of other houses in the area. Can Legal Officer advise on the point relating to previous planning application? The Legal Officer clarified that this referred to a condition attached to the decision notice requiring parking. This condition did not specify what kind of parking, and had not been breached in any way. The concern raised would not satisfy public interest test for any enforcement action.
• The application would make maintenance of the neighbouring property almost impossible, would move for refusal on grounds of SD4 and the effect on neighbouring amenity.
The Head of Planning clarified that the application was for a modest extension that would not be out of character with the surroundings. Any issue of maintenance would be a civil matter.
Planning View visit showed that there is clear space for parking elsewhere on the site, so this is not a critical issue. Straying into areas of maintenance, which isn’t for this committee.
There being no further comments, the Chair moved to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.
- Officer Report, item 8. PDF 413 KB
- 22-01816 27 Hulbert Close - presentation, item 8. PDF 2 MB
- 22-01816 27 Hulbert Close - updated presentation, item 8. PDF 4 MB