Agenda item

LW told Members that this application is for a 2m extension to the existing extension, on a GII-listed building in the conservation area on The Park.  Chalfont House is the largest villa on The Park still in single use, and this application is at committee at the request of RG who wanted Members to consider the proposal if the officer recommendation was to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Blanchfield, applicant, in support

Said her family is fortunate to live at Chalfont House, and passionate about preserving its character and historical importance.  Since 2008, they have carried out sensitive restorative works, in consultation with special advisers, local historian and extensive research, including repair and restoration of 42 windows and many original features – this was an enormous financial commitment, requiring the family to live elsewhere for a full year while the work was carried out, reflecting their dedication to preserving the historical integrity of their home.  Told Members that Grade II-listed buildings do not lend themselves to modern family living, require much on-going maintenance and huge running costs, which is why so many similar houses have been subdivided into flats – only four out of 16 villas on The Park remain as family homes.  She and her husband cherish Chalfont, have embraced its historic quirkiness and adapted their living arrangements to suit it, but to make it fit for modern family living, have added a glass kitchen to create a heart for the family home with a direct link to and aspect over the garden – said this was constructed in good faith, but as she was living off-site, said it wasn’t her remit to visit the site and check the measurements, adding that she is intelligent enough to not knowingly run the risk of having to pull down an expensive extension. 

The extension is carefully designed and executed, and was short-listed for a civic award.  Noted that the submission suggests the kitchen has a ply membrane roof but in fact has a copper roof of the highest quality – is disappointed that for all the fuss that surrounds the application, no one bothered to check on site.  Having lived with the kitchen for four years, said that due to its size, it fails on every level to function as a family room, where she can oversee her two boys doing their homework or sit with their grandparents and watch them play in the garden – to all intents and purposes, the kitchen of this five-bedroomed family house serves only as an access point to the garden.  Is only asking to bring the kitchen extension in line with the structures on the other side of the house, and sees no other means of improving the shortcomings of the existing building.  Said it would be in the public benefit for Chalfont to remain as a single dwelling rather than fall victim of developers and be subdivided into flats because a family kitchen commensurate with the size and status of the house can’t be achieved. Is prepared to continue to devote time, effort and extensive financial commitment to maintaining the fabric of this important house in the future.

Member debate:

MS:  walked round the house on planning view and looked closely at the building, noting that the extension has been built with great integrity, is well-constructed, and has no effect on anyone else.  It would be churlish to refuse.  The site lends itself to the proposed development, balancing up that already constructed on the right.  Moved to permit.

RG:  supports this move.  Has argued with the conservation team before over another house on The Park in need of work to make it a viable family home.  Realises that this is a listed building, but thinks it better to keep it as a single family dwelling rather than see it divided into flats.  The building looks fantastic – though more so from the front than from the back, as with many similar buildings – and turning the corner to see the garden and huge expanse of glass in the contemporary extension is very impressive.  Notes that the extension has not been built as stated, and also that the roof is not ply membrane as stated in the report.  Cheltenham has many listed buildings, but not so many willing applicants keen to preserve and enhance them.  Two extra metres will not make any difference to the proposed contemporary structure.  Disagrees with the officer recommendation, and supports MS’s move to permit.

PJ:  also agrees with MS’s move to permit.  Modern architecture needs to work with listed buildings, to go above and beyond normal requirements.  The conservation officers need to be very explicit about how the proposed changes will affect the conservation area. 

BD:  supports the move to permit, seeing no problem at all.  The proposal adds to the look of the house and the garden is huge and will affect no-one - some permissions are granted which are practically on the neighbour’s land.  The scheme is well done – it wasn’t done properly in the first place, but is done now.  Will vote in support.

BF:  the nub of the issue is the NPPF statement (Paragraphs 133 and 134) which can be interpreted in so many different ways.  Policy documents should be clear – but this is as clear as mud.  The NPPF is a new document yet this statement gives no chance of interpretation one way or the other.

KS, in response:

-          the house is Grade II listed, and the remit for any work to such a building is to preserve and enhance it, to better reveal the building.  The spacious grounds around this house complement and enhance it, making it desirable for occupants.  The extension which has been built does not have planning permission, and now the applicants want to extend it further;

-          the proposal is visually challenging from the side aspect, and doesn’t read well; it is elongated, and the proportions are not good;

-          the proposal will not result in a heritage gain, and is purely to suit the functional needs of the current occupants.

LW, in response:

-          on the roof materials issue, was not the case officer, but told Members that KR had visited the site pre-app but when the application was submitted may have forgotten the exact roof material  Also, the application form clearly states that the existing roof of the extension is ply membrane, hence where the confusion has arisen.. Said Members were aware from the site visit that the roof is copper;

-          permission was granted in 2009 for an extension 5m x 5.5m, but was subsequently built 6.4m x 5.5m.  With the proposed new extension and roof overhang, the extension would be 3.5m longer than originally agreed, and not in line with its planning permission.

LG:  has listened carefully to the comments, and suggests that if we don’t want to see this listed building extended, planning permission shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.  Recalls hotels and similar buildings where this sort of extension has been considered to be OK, yet it is not considered acceptable for a family’s requirements.  Members should think seriously what this is all about.

GB:  doesn’t like to introduce a sour note, but isn’t convinced by the current proposal – it is a substantial increase to the property and doesn’t sit well.   Worried that the 2009 permission wasn’t built to plan - the applicant claims to have been unaware of this due to living off site, but surely an increase of size such as this would incur considerable extra cost?  This is not the only retrospective application being considered tonight, and this is something that needs to be considered.  Planning officers can’t check up on every application but building control officers must have been on site and would surely have realised it was being built bigger than permitted?  Do officers in different departments speak to each other and work together in a joined-up way?   Wonders who will check that the current proposal isn’t extended by another metre without the authority knowing, and has no confidence that plans are being built as given. Agrees with the conservation officer that this is an extension too far.

RG:  Members have recently considered another application which had been built higher than permitted, and controversy about non-opening windows - there will always be battles about what is being built and what shouldn’t be, but the applicant shouldn’t be punished because something has gone wrong in the construction.  This proposed extension isn’t bad, and the heritage gain is the refurbishment of a listed building.  Recalls Summerfield House where buildings were permitted within the garden.  Policy-wise, there is a mixture of considerations, but the proposal will be out of view, and it shouldn’t be forgotten that the work on the house so far has been nominated for a Civic Award. 

SW:  would be disappointed if the applicant had to remove the work already done, but would be happy to see it stay as it is now.  Noted on planning view this is a massive building, outbalanced by the extensions.  If we are going to take any notice of conservation officers and conservation areas, this is clearly an example that shouldn’t have been allowed to be built at all – so it could be said that the extra 2m won’t make much difference.  Questions the applicant’s comment that the kitchen isn’t big enough for her family needs - he knows of families living in houses with footprints no bigger than the proposed extension alone.  It should be left as it is.

PT:  will the extension be altered, demolished or what – what is the process when something has been built without planning permission?  It the extension is over size, how can it be restored to what it should be?  Adding a further extension seems wrong, and the proposal looks poor from the side angle, though not too bad from the front.  Can’t support the proposal – will vote with the officer recommendation.

LW, in response:

-          regarding enforcement action, KR has stated that it wouldn’t be expedient to take any action on what has already been built, but if permission is refused, the applicant should put in an application to regularise it;

-          reminded Members that the extension would be 9.5m long with the roof overhang, doubling the length of the house.

KS, in response:

-          toLG’s comment about why development of this property was supported in the first place, it was clear that the family had put a huge amount of effort into its conservation, and officers gave very careful consideration to whether it should be extended at all.  After much negotiation to address their concerns, the original permission was granted, as it was a good design, contributed to the conservation of the house as a family home, and was acceptable in scale, form and proportion.  The extension was subsequently built larger than permitted, and officers cannot support further development, and ask the question as to where the applicants will stop with this – will the house be continually and incrementally developed and enlarged?

PH:  on planning view, wondered what would have happened if the owners had put in an application for a traditional extension – thought the challenge here was the new appearance of the extension, but if it had been more traditional, it would have been called pastiche.  Is in two minds about which way to vote, but argues against any action being taken to remove the extension itself – it is there, it looks good, and is a nice challenge between the established building and the new development.

HM:  can’t support the officers because of the refusal reasons:  one of these refers to Paragraph 133 of the NPPF, but when the extension was built, the NPPF wasn’t in existence and therefore cannot be relied on; also quotes local plan policy BE9, saying this five-bedroomed house is home to three generations and needs a big kitchen.

LW, in response:

-          with reference to BE9, reminds Members that this is an application for an extension to an extension – if the entire extension is taken as a whole and considered against current policy, the NPPF is relevant here.

GB:  is not advocating taking down the existing extension, but certainly thinks there should be no more.  It was negotiated down in size in 2009, that size was then exceeded, and the applicant now proposes to exceed it even more.  This is the pertinent issue here, and should be taken into account when the decision is made.

LW, in response:

-          if Members vote to permit, conditions will need to be added concerning roof details, materials etc.  These will be similar to the original extension, and can be done in consultation with the chair and vice-chair, if Members are happy with this. 

AC:  confused by the talk about an extension to an extension – there are two applications to be considered.

CC:  confirmed that Members were about to vote on the first of these.

Vote taken on MS’s move to permit

10 in support

5 in objection

PERMIT