Agenda item

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item; the agent on behalf of the applicant and a Ward Member.

The agent on behalf of the applicant then addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The ultimate purpose for the building is to provide space for the applicant’s mother to reside in her later years. This is not the case currently and the applicants wish to use the space as an Airbnb and short term let. There are currently several similar properties across the town being used as Airbnb’s.

-       It is confirmed in the report that the use of the garage for residential purposes does not cause amenity concerns and that the principle of a residential property on the site is acceptable.

-       The objection to the scheme is a subjective view that the layout does not conform to the character of the area. However, when considering a new application for a dwelling 30 metres from this site, officers found there to be no prevailing local character. The plot with the converted garage is equivalent to neighbouring plots.

-       This application seeks to retain the existing boundary fence on Evesham Road, which is only 30cm higher than the existing permission for 1.5m. This section of Evesham Road has a varied street scene which includes some boundary walls of up to 2m. The 1.8m fence has benefits of preventing trespassing and littering in the applicants property. The timber fence is softened by mature trees behind it and is appropriate with the street scene. There will be no visual benefit to the street scene by reducing the height of the fence.

-       It is acknowledged that when the garage was built parts of it did not align with the original permission. The applicant has fully engaged with the council’s planning enforcement team and this application is sought to rectify the areas of misalignment.

-       It is important to note that planning officers did not find that the building breached policies in terms of the dimensions or its relationship with neighbouring properties and considered their amenity protected.

Councillor Tooke as Ward Member was then asked to address the committee and made the following points:

-       When a version of this building which bears limited relationship to what was built was granted planning permission, the conditions of the planning permission were explicit including condition 8 which stated the outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied other than for purposes ancillary to the residential dwelling, Little Duncroft. The reason for this was that use of the outbuilding as independent residential accommodation and resultant subdivision of the plot are inappropriate due to size and configuration of the site and the potential harmful impact on neighbouring amenity, having regard to the provisions of the  Cheltenham Plan 2020 and the Joint Core Strategy 2017.

-       The scale and position of the building had been negotiated with the applicant prior to application to ensure that was used as a garage and gym. Officers raised concerns with the applicant to remove the first floor residential element and reduce the scale of the outbuilding and to reposition the building closer to the main house. The applicant confirmed that the proposed building would remain ancillary to the main dwelling and would not be occupied separately or independently from it.

-       Officers were right to be concerned about the potential for the building to be converted into a self-contained main residential unit in the future as this was ignored and a significantly larger building was built and is being rented as an Airbnb.

-       He stated that he would support the officer recommendation to refuse the application and would go further that the existing approval and conditions should remain in their entirety. The use of the building should remain restricted to being ancillary to the main dwelling and should exclude short term rentals. The building should conform with the scale and finishes approved and the planning conditions previously imposed including those relating to fencing and hedgerow should be actioned.

-       This would still permit use as a garage with gym and storage and will reduce the potential for unapproved use and help with amenity impact on neighbouring properties.

-       The recent approval at 3 Cleevelands Drive is irrelevant as the building is not similar in design as it is single storey building and has a flat roof.

-       Planning permission should be refused and planning enforcement should enforce the original conditions.

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

-       Previous planning decisions are important material planning considerations in terms of  the structure and the principle of that structure in that location. The proposal is larger than previously approved, as is the footprint and it is higher and used different materials.

-       Permission was granted for a fence of 1.5m with vegetation behind to encourage it to grow over the fence to try and mitigate the harsh impact.

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

-       Minded to follow the officer recommendation to refuse.

-       Mixed feelings about the scheme and mindful that we do not have a five year land supply. On balance between lack of five year land supply and against the damage of the development. There were no objections from the highways authority and do not consider that there is an impact on neighbouring amenity. Although not the most attractive building it does fulfil climate change requirements. The neighbour to the right of the development has not objected.

-       Concerned about the ugly fence due to its impact on the street scene as it is mainly hedgerows. If we were minded to approve would like to condition for the height of the fence reduced to 1.5m as previously approved.

-       Concerned that there would also be a loss of amenity to Daneway House if this building is used as an Airbnb. As this is a completely different use to a garage which was originally approved.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse:

For: 8

Against: 2

Abstentions: 1

Refused.