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 ward member.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The proposed development at 41 Hales Close will significantly and negatively impact the safety, character and quality of life for residents on the street.

·         The street consists of family homes and is a close-knit community who are concerned that this development may be intended for rental use, as the new owner is understood to be a builder. There is significant concern this will disrupt the established family character and safety of the street and undermine the community spirit that is valued so highly.

·         Residents have experienced anti-social and violent behaviour linked to previous short term rentals on the street which has raised fears about potential future disruption. It would be a shameto see the close-knit community undermined by a development not aligned with existing family homes.

·         It will also have a crucial impact on light, privacy and the overall quality of life of neighbouring properties. Residents at 9 Fox Grove, and 39, 43 and 45 Hales Close have all expressed strong opposition due to concerns about significant loss of light and privacy. The size of the proposed double storey rear extension will create a repressive feeling of enclosure, particularly affecting 43 Hales Close which directly adjoins it. As a resident with a south facing garden and rooms benefitting from natural light the increased height of the extension and potential for overlooking windows will severely diminish enjoyment of both indoor and outdoor spaces and erode the sense of openness.

·         The inclusion of at least three bathrooms upstairs, two of which will be near a thin 1960s built bedroom wall, raises severe concerns about increased noise. Music can already be heard through these walls and additional bathrooms will undoubtedly further intensify disturbance, impacting quality of life.

·         Parking and safety is a critical issue and is already a significant problem on the street, exacerbated by the presence of a special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) school. During peak times it is hard to get down the street with residents sometimes needing to leave houses before or after drop off times. The current situation already forces wheelchair and pram users to go onto the road due to vehicles parking on dropped kerbs. Whilst the development plans look good on paper, showing new parking spaces, there are genuine concerns that these will not be able to accommodate multiple vehicles and lead to more cars parking on an already congested street.

·         The aesthetics and character of the street are at stake. Currently the semi-detached houses are built in a staggered position and share a uniform design. The proposed extension does not match the established character and will take the development out of alignment of neighbouring houses. Retaining the sympathetic design and existing character of this end of the street is important to residents and one of the primary reasons people have chosen to live there.

·         The new owner has not addressed the concerns raised about the development, demonstrating a lack of neighbourly consideration and a lack of respect for the street’s character. Residents are not against alterations to residential properties in general but the proposed development is not proportionate to the existing residential homes.

·         The proposed development presents significant and unmitigated negative impacts to the community, parking and safety, aesthetic character of the street, and quality of life for longstanding residents. Ask that the Committee consider the concerns raised and refuse the application to preserve the wellbeing and established character of the community and the street.

Councillor Day, as Ward Member, addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The objector has eloquently detailed the substantial harm this application will inflict on immediate neighbours and the wider community.

·         The application does not comply with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), Policy D1 of the Cheltenham Plan, Policies SL1 and SD14.

·         The lack of a dropped kerb means off-street parking in front of the property will be an offense under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. 

·         A single storey rear extension, a front extension in keeping with the street scene, and a dropped kerb driveway with adequate off street parking would be acceptable and comply with policy. But this is not what the application presents.

·         The two storey section of the rear extension would extend 1.5m into the garden. The additional roof section will extend approximately 2m before sloping down. This is overbearing to neighbouring properties and out of keeping with the character of the street. The privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties will be impacted to an unacceptable degree, from loss of light to their gardens and properties, and their ability to enjoy their gardens. This contravenes policies SL1 and SD14 and conflicts with Section 12 of the NPPF.

·         The proposed front extension is higher, longer, and considerably wider than the existing porch, and extends to the edge of the house on one side. It is overbearing and out of keeping with the staggered street scene and only a reduced height window can be fitted above it. The extension will be visually discordant with the street scene contravening paragraph 135 of the NPPF which requires developments to be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

·         The floorplan shows three ensuite double bedrooms with showers and no family bathroom. It suggests that future occupancy could total six adults and therefore as many as six cars requiring parking. The application shows two parking spaces being created in front of the house but no dropped kerb. There is a separate garage with one space in front. Given the amount of people who use their garage for storage, most likely there is off street parking for only three cars.

·         The officer’s report states that a future application for a dropped kerb will be made, but this was not mentioned when I discussed the application with the officer on 5^th September and queried its absence. An application without a dropped kerb should be refused as there is no guarantee that an additional application will be made, and bouncing a vehicle up a kerb and crossing a pavement is an offence under the Highways Act 1980.

·         The impact of additional on street parking should be considered for Equality Act issues due to the impact on the Battledown Centre For Children & Families SEND school which uses Barn Field towards the top of Hales Close for pupil drop off and pick up. This requires careful co-ordination, as parking is frequently an issue due to overflow parking from businesses located on Hales Road, and vehicles displaced by Zone 15.

·         An application was approved recently to deconvert a residence on Hales Road from flats totalling 5 bedrooms across 4 units back to a single residence (application 25/00986/FUL). Even though there was sufficient off street parking for the flats the officer’s report included as a determining issue that: “Officers are of the view that a reduction in units is likely to reduce impact on neighbours in terms of noise and disturbance, as a result of a likely reduction in occupiers, visitors and traffic to and from the site”. Similar issues should be dealt with consistently across applications and the likely increased level of visitors, occupiers, and traffic which would result from this application would increase the impact on neighbours to an unacceptable degree.

·         All the policy conflicts detailed mean this application should be refused.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

·         Planning permission would not be required for a house of multiple occupation (HMO) with only three bedrooms. The application presented is not for the establishment of a HMO, but is for an extension and should be determined on that basis.

·         The applicant would not be required to seek planning permission if a dropped kerb with a permeable surface was being built as this would fall within permitted development (a dropped kerb without a permeable surface would require planning permission). This makes it difficult to add a condition, but an informative could be included to advise the applicant that an application should be submitted, either as a full planning application or as a certificate of permitted development (if the criteria are met). The applicant’s agent has confirmed that a subsequent application will be submitted if the use of parking is to go ahead.

·         Permitted development would allow a first floor side window to be included only if it is obscure glazed with a high level opening (1.7m above the internal floor level). If a clear window was proposed that would require planning permission.

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

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 2

Voted to permit the application.