Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above.  It is a revised application, the previous scheme being refused on design grounds.  The current proposal is exactly the same as the dwelling built to the rear of 17 Greenhills Road.  It is at Planning Committee due to objection from Parish Council as over-development of the site, and also at the request of Councillors Baker and Smith, due to residents’ concerns.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Borrie, neighbour, in objection

The previous application was rejected as its scale, form and massing would constitute over development, fail to complement or respect the neighbouring development, and fail to be subservient to the existing dwelling.  None of these issues have been addressed with this new application.  The NPPF discourages inappropriate development of residential gardens, which this is.  Cheltenham’s SPD on garden land developments gives clear guidance as to what is or isn’t acceptable, stating that single tandem development will not normally be accepted, and a rear garden development should be of a reduced scale compared to the frontage houses – yet the proposed house has 2,400 sq feet, comparable to existing houses on that side of Greenhills Road.  Local Plan policy CP7 requires development to complement and respect neighbouring development and the character of the locality, but the proposed house will result in significant loss of green space, totally out of character with the street scene and at odds with the urban grain.  It will have a significant effect on neighbouring properties, leading the loss of privacy, a compromise on security due to the new driveway providing access to rear gardens, and visual impact on a number of surrounding homes.  If every property in the road undertook tandem development, it would totally change the character of the neighbourhood and quality of life and amenities of residents.  There would be no large gardens, less green space, and more flood risk.  Permission has been granted for a similar development at No 17 Greenhills Road, despite it not meeting planning guidelines, but there is not requirement to grant permission for this more intrusive one, with only one parking space and 3 metres closer to the northern boundary.  It seems odd that No 16 should be allowed to build at the extreme north end of its property because the owners of 7/8 The Avenue have not built in their back gardens.  

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones, in support

This application follows the Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for a dwelling on the site in June, on the grounds that the contemporary design did not complement or respect the neighbouring development and was not subservient.  The revised proposal is identical to that approved at 17 Greenhills Road last October.  Policies have not changed since then, so that consent provides a compelling recent precedent – as Members know, planning authorities have a duty to be consistent.  In response to the refusal reasons and Members’ comments, the revised proposal seeks consent for a single dwelling of traditional design, identical to the one approved at No 17 and similar to those approved at Haymans Close and Charlton Gardens.  It has the same floor area as the dwelling approved next door, and is approximately one third smaller that the dwelling fronting Greenhills Road.  In response to neighbours’ objection that this is an over development, garden developments have been permitted close to the site, and the principle of developing in rear gardens has been clearly established; this proposal compares in massing, height and urban grain with that previously consented by the authority.  Regarding impact on privacy, the proposal is identical to that approved at 17 Greenhills Road, and the officer, having noted residents’ concerns, considers it to be in accordance with policy CP4.  No highway objection has been raised, and the proposed access has been designed to match that previously approved at No 17.  In summary, the revised proposal has addressed Members’ concerns, reduced the physical bulk of the proposal, and reverted to traditional design. It is subservient to the houses fronting Greenhills Road, and takes design references from new houses in Haymans Close and Charlton Gardens.  National and local policy does not seek to prevent appropriate development on garden sites, and this is a sustainable development, which complies with both local and national planning policy.

Member debate:

KS:  we are being told that this is an identical site to the one next door at No. 17.  Is the boundary to the same level as the site next door?  Was No. 17 on the same size garden as this, or was it smaller?

CN:  has problems with this application.  It seemed reasonable at first, but thinking about the report, the site, planning view, and the discussions about 21 The Avenue, is not so sure.  The area is rather unique, and although Planning Committee agreed to the dwelling next door at No.17 which could be seen as creating a precedent, was brought up to believe that two wrongs don’t make a right – and wonders if the previous decision was correct.  If what was agreed for No 17 is agreed for No 16, what will happen in the future?  Looking at the size of Greenhills Road gardens on the plans, it is clear that the lines converge from west to east.  If each house made a similar application, at what point would it be decided that the garden is not big enough for a house such as this?  Questions the wisdom of this precedent.  The Architects’ Panel raised the issue of the roof; we are told that the proposals at No 17 and No 16 are exactly the same, but are the roofs the same?  It seems like a big building with a big roof.  The report talks about the 2002 recommendation for the preparation of a development brief for this area, which was not progressed – why not?  There is a comment in the report that CBC currently cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, but is this still the case, bearing in mind the proposed housing provision in the JCS?  This proposal is a tandem development which is not permissible, according to the SPD on garden land development.  Why have these rules not been applied at No17?  There are some unusual conditions relating to parking and turning – are these included to justify going against policy?  There is mention in one of the objections of a covenant – what is the legal position on this?  Regarding traffic, knows this road well, and that traffic along it can be busy.  If a whole load of houses is added over the years, this will increase the number of cars.  With the width of pavements, cyclists etc, this is an accident waiting to happen, and the more houses, the greater the risk that this will happen.

MP, in response:

-          the proposed dwelling is identical in every way to the one permitted next door at No 17 – there have been no changes;

-          regarding the proposed development brief in 2002, Members decided they did not want to take the idea any further;

-          toCN’s question about why the dwelling was permitted at No 17 against advice in the SPD – the SPD is not intended to preclude all development, as explained at 6.5.6 of the report.  In this case, because backland development has already taken place, the character of the area has altered and this will not be a stand-alone tandem dwelling;

-          highway safety is also dealt with in the report.  Highways officers have not commented on this proposal, but it is covered by standard highways advice;  the revised plan shows that access will be in line with the comments made for No 17;

-          covenants are not a material consideration to planning applications;

-          the sites – No 16 and No 17 – are not exactly the same size, but are certainly comparable.

KS:  when the application was at Committee the last time, had a problem with its bulk, scale and mass regarding the size of the site.  This is better – but how does it compare to the other side, in case this makes a difference?

PB:  is looking at the location of the building within the plot.  The proposed new house is substantial yet appears to have no amenity space and no garden.  It is also North facing – is this good design?  Is opposed to this scheme on principle, and has difficulty with the existing permissions.  It would be useful to know where the new dwelling at No 17 will be in relation to this.

MP, in response: 

-          regarding amenity space – this compares with amenity space of similar properties in Haymans Close and at No 17.  It is only slightly smaller.  There are no set standards to regulate this.

PB: the properties in Haymans Close are smaller – there will be four or five people living here. Asks again, is this good design?

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

5 in objection

PERMIT