Agenda item

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were 2 speakers on the item: an objector and the applicant.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       We have objections to two different parts of the proposed plans, the rear upper storey extension and the side upper storey extension.

-       The rear upper storey extension would damage the aspect from all of the rear rooms and reduce light in parts of our garden.

-       It may be 14 metres from our rear elevation, but its bulk and gable roof would loom over the objectors house adding considerably to the impact already felt from an extension at number 4. It would make their house and garden feel hemmed in on two sides and would also impact the attractiveness to future potential purchasers.

-       The proposed side upper storey extension would bring number 2 within about 9 metres of the rear of the objectors house and about 10 metres from the rear of the neighbouring property at number 1. The usual required is a minimum distance of 12 metres. This does not appear to have been addressed in the officer report.

-       The objector further understood that when discussing initial plans with officers, the applicants agent was advised that a full width extension at the front above the garage, which was preferred option was told it would be unacceptable and unlikely to be supported as the distance between it and the rear of number 1 The Gardens would be less than the minimum distance of 12 metres usually required. That potential front extension would have come to exactly the same line on the boundary between the properties as the side extension. This seems odd and inconsistent that officers should now approve the side extension even though it would be within 9 metres of our house.

-       The objector proposed to the committee that they ask officers to reconsider their original advice about a potential full width extension across the front of the property with a view to allowing it if the applicant were to put in such a proposal. The objector would be prepared to compromise by withdrawing their objection to the side upper extension, despite its proximity and harmful impact on them as it is less unacceptable to us than the rear first storey extension.

The applicant the addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The applicant had lived in Pittville in Cheltenham for 6 years, during this time in the area we have seen recent expansions of existing detached properties mostly by building developers due to the desirability of the area.

-       A lot of consideration was made when designing the work that has been submitted in this application. The architect we chose designed the adjacent property next door and ensured that the application was kept  in line with the feel of the Close, as highlighted in the officer report.

-       The sides of the plot, the location to others and the threshold for any potential expansion were always kept in mind when putting forward our designs. This is apparent in the front and rear extensions ensuring these have been kept as far away from neighbouring facing gardens as possible whilst aligning to an already expanding neighbourhood property at number 4.

-       A single storey extension has also been used to minimise impact on others whilst keeping our own family needs in mind.

-       The distances kept between the extensions and neighbouring properties also meet the requirements provided as part of the planning application and in the officer report. It is significantly smaller than other recent developments which have happened on the Close.

-       The property adjacent at number 4 had significant two storey extensions wrapped around the property, the applicant felt that any views by ourselves or those neighbouring properties have long been obstructed since this construction.

-       The three metres the applicant wishes to extend by will leave a considerable garden for the family and minimise any potential impact to surrounding properties. Where a potential privacy impact was highlighted by the planning officer during the review of the request to the garden south of the property the applicant listened and adhered to all requested amendments.

-       The applicant felt that they were asking for the appropriate volume in relation to the size of the plot.

-       In the sustainability report are plans which aim to make the best and lightest footprint possible from reclaiming materials, adding renewable energy sources, improving insulation and carefully selecting eco-friendly fittings.

The matter then went to Member questions, the responses were as follows:

-       During the course of the application officers raised concerns with the new first floor rear elevation windows within the new wing not achieving the distance to the rear boundary for privacy reasons. The applicant and agent had sight of concerns with regards to loss of light and outlook. The agent asked if officers would be supportive of moving the first floor extension from the rear to the front. Two potential issues there, design implications as you wouldn’t usually expect to see full width two storey front extension in that location as context of street scene is generally projected wings to the front. The other part is the distances, officers are required to consider the relationship of the application site to the neighbours and it is broadly positioned where it straddles the boundary between number 1 and 2, its side elevation is heading towards the gap between those two properties. That is where officers feel that the first floor rear extension is acceptable as it achieves 14 metres from the rear elevation of number 2 to the side wall, if you move that extension to the front and put it up to the boundary it moves in front of the rear elevation of number 1 and would be short of that distance. We accept that the two storey side extension is closer as stated by the objector but we have to consider context, outlook and position of gardens, number 2 garden is largely unaffected as it is south of the plot and number 1 their garden wraps around the rear and side of their property.

-       The legal officer explained that it is the planning application before the committee and there is no power for the planning authority to act as a mediator between applicant and objectors as it is a private law matter. The planning officer added that outside of the application it’s not their role to be involved but they are there to negotiate a scheme if it is unacceptable. As in this application with the rear windows, had the applicant not been willing to accept change to the rear windows the officer recommendation would be different or refused without coming to committee.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were raised:

-       Would support this application as people buy the location not the house as it is and along this Close all the properties have changed. Design is always subjective and in general see nothing wrong with the application.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 10

Abstain: 1