Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

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

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Talking on behalf of residents of Bournside Road who are objecting on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenity, and loss of privacy.

-       Twelve objections were received during the consultation, and six letter of support. Objections were on average 1000 words, showing how serious objectors’ concerns are. When the location of those objecting is considered, objections from residents living on the road are overwhelmingly negative.

-       Bournside Road is mainly made up of detached houses with large gardens and large spaces between the houses. As you walk down the road between the houses you can see trees, hills and Hatherley Park behind the houses, which the SPD references in its description of good design in Cheltenham’s suburbs. This streetscape is being eroded through incremental planning decisions that permit overdevelopment of individual plots. They are looking for planning committee to protect the streetscape as defined in the SPD.

-       The most overdeveloped property on the street was granted planning permission retrospectively in 2022. It looks like no other house on the road, but the planning officer has chosen this house as the comparator for no. 18.

-       The plan shows only a 1m gap between the buildings edge and boundary. This is just enough space for scaffolding to be erected, so the design is as wide as physically possible. The roof reaches the maximum allowed height and the building’s mass from the front cannot be any larger. The floor space is increasing by 300% which the planning officer considers a modest increase in footprint. However, compared to typical houses on this stretch of road it is overdevelopment.

-       Objectively the plan does not meet the SPD design principles:

o   The character of the building has not been maintained, as the building has lost symmetry and matches neither the character of the original house or the streetscape.

o   Due to the much larger roof and side extension taking up half of the visual bulk of the house from the front, instead of supporting the original house the extension and roof dominate it. It is not subservient to the original design.

o   Space has not been maintained between the buildings. If a single storey garage extension had been proposed the view of trees being the house would have been maintained. The planning officer’s report states that there is still a 2m gap and no terracing effect, but the view will still be lost with such a small gap.

o   Loft conversions should follow the design guidelines and extend into roof spaces. In this proposal the flat roof elevation with Juliet balcony gives the appearance of a third floor. The SPD explicitly states that a loft conversion should not appear as an extra storey on top of the house. The SPD recommends sloping roofs with flush or recessed dormer windows in conversions to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties. The loft conversion has not been considered in the report and does not meet the privacy requirement.

o   Whilst neighbours can currently look through bedroom windows into gardens, there are minimal reasons for them to do so. By contrast a Juliet balcony is for lingering, watching sunsets, and having drinks. It is on the third floor, higher than existing bedrooms and further back. It will be much more visible once the building is taller and will be sacrificing neighbour’s right to privacy, explicitly forbidden by the SPD.

-       The scale of the streetscape illustration provided is misleading as the disclaimer states and should not be used in decision making.

-       In summary, this application should be refused as it does not comply to SPD design principles. The neighbours understand the need to extend the property to live in and are happy to work with planning officers and developers to reach a compromise.

The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The applicants are not commercial developers, and they bought this property with the sole aim of creating their forever home.

-       Unfortunately, the property is in a state of disrepair. The roof is ‘end of life’, and the structure requires complete renovation. The proposed plans seek to restore and extend the property, from a relatively modest four to five-bedroom home.

-       They have shown their full commitment to the council’s planning process. Firstly, by completing a pre-planning application which raised no significant concerns regarding scale, form or design. Following feedback from a small number of neighbours, they took the decision to make a further series of meaningful revisions. These changes go above and beyond the recommendations of the planning officer. Following the re-submission of the amended plans they were pleased to see a decrease in the number of objections from twelve to six, and were encouraged to receive six letters of support, including from their next-door neighbours and the property opposite.

-       Unable to address all of the false claims that have been raised, would like to factually address the main concerns of overdevelopment, privacy and street scene:

o   Overdevelopment - No. 18 sits on one of the largest plots on Bournside Road. Even with the proposed extension, the overall plot coverage remains under 25%, of which 6% is single storey. To reduce the perceived scale further the roof shape has been re-designed, and the conservatory and front porch have been removed. Many other homes on Bournside Road have already extended into their loft space, reflecting a precedent to support evolving family requirements.

o   Privacy concerns – as part of the revision, the size of the Juliet window has been significantly reduced. It has been designed to allow views across their own back garden and TPO trees. Due to the property location on the plot, it is set away from the border of no. 20 and does not overlook their garden. Importantly none of the rear neighbours have objected to the revised plans and one has retracted their original objection. Their next-door neighbour at no. 16 has submitted a letter of support. Full balconies and Juliet windows are already established elsewhere on the road, demonstrating a clear precedent for this feature.

o   Street scene – the street scene is already well-established with significant variations in size, form, design and gapping. Render and cladding finishes are already established in this part of the road, with no. 15 being a prime example. No. 12, three doors down, received approval in December 2024 for a sizeable extension including vertical cladding and received no objections. The street scene drawing provided clearly shows that the proposed extension sits comfortably and proportionately among its neighbours.

-       The applicants have followed a thorough planning journey from the pre-application stage to their ongoing collaboration with planning officers to deliver meaningful design revisions. The process demonstrates that they’ve listened carefully, acted in good faith, and resubmitted plans in response to concerns. The officer’s recommendation for approval gives them confidence that the application is both policy compliant and proportionate.

-       They are currently renting the property whilst also paying a mortgage. Any further delay, particularly an appeal, would place a significant financial burden on the family. Respectfully ask the Committee to approve this well considered application.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       In terms of a hierarchy of planning documents, the SPD is of lower significance that the NPPF or local plan.

-       The street scene was provided by the applicant and does state that it is for illustrative purposes only. The planning officer has not been able to confirm the measurements and can only work on the assumption that they are correct.

-       The gap between the houses is as permitted.

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

-       A Member noted that he had spent significant time canvassing in this area during the recent election and it is quite an eclectic road. He did not feel that the proposal represented overdevelopment and could see no legitimate reason to object to the application given the recommended conditions.

-       On the site visit other houses on the road were much nearer boundaries than no. 18 currently is. The proposal would bring it more in line with other houses on the street.

-       It was felt that the designs complied with policy and had been well assessed.

-       Southwest Cheltenham have strongly resisted third floor balconies but as this has become a common feature on this road there is precedent in this particular context.

-       The council is currently rendering a significant number of council owned properties to improve insulation. The rendering proposed wouldn’t be out of character for this property and it would be hypocritical to consider this as a change of character when the council are carrying out the same actions throughout the town.

-       The proposal will not overlook other properties and will not be able to see into other windows. It only overlooks gardens and as multi-storey properties are the majority in this area it is inevitable that gardens will be overlooked.

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

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit.