Agenda item

CS introduced this application, which is situation in the Prestbury Conservation Area and also in the greenbelt.  The application originally included the construction of boundary walls along the edge of the site, but these have subsequently been removed from the application as they are 1.8m high and do not require planning permission.  Following re-consultation, the application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Stennett, and due to a Parish Council objection.  Officers are satisfied that the proposal will preserve the character of the conservation area, will not affect the openness of the greenbelt, and the recommendation is to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

MS:  it is unfortunate that the erection of a 1.8m wall around this tiny garden comes under permitted development rights, but it does.  However, the proposed bin store in front of the wall is right in front of the neighbour’s window.  The neighbour will have no choice but to look at the roof of the bin store – this is very anti-social, particularly as there is no real reason to have a bin store in this position.  There is a small bin store further along, which causes no offence to anyone.  If it has to be here, it should be below the level of the wall.  Will move to refuse on CP4.

PT:  what is the exact distance from the back of the bin store to the window mentioned by MS?  Will support the move to refuse this application.

CS, in response:

-            the impact of the proposed roof will be felt by the residents of Bredon, but the light test has been carried out and comfortably passed.  There is therefore no reason to ask the applicant to reduce the height of the bin store.

-            the fall-back position here is that without the roof, the structure would be permitted development and not as aesthetically pleasing;

-            the distance from the windows of Bredon to the bin store is 9.4m.

PB:  is the light test a nationally accepted standard or one of our own tests?  Will it be reviewed in the local plan going forward?

AC:  appreciates that we have no choice about the wall, although he doesn’t like it, but the bin store is ugly and not a nice view for residents to look out at.  Notes that the applicant lives in Norway, and the cottage is used for short lets.  For the people living there permanently, it will be dreadful.  Will vote against this application.

CS, in response:

-            the light test is referred to in policy CP4 – it is a detailed document, designed to assess the impact of a proposal on light for windows around it.  If it is carried out and a small loss of light is noted, then the proposal is still considered to pass the light test.  If there is an overbearing impact, it is not.  This proposal comfortably passed the light test.  The test is written in policy and used every day by officers.  It is a desk-based exercise, using scale drawings.

MS:  is not only concerned with the loss of light, but the general appearance and unnecessary obstruction which will be evident when looking out of the window.  It is not a pretty design.  It may not be blocking a large amount of light but it is not appropriate in the conservation area in that place.  The applicant hasn’t positioned the bin store in front of his own cottage, which is rented out, but in front of the cottages in private ownership.

MJC, in response:

-            for the record, the light test is a national regulated best practice;

-            has listened to the debate and noted a lack of objective analysis from Members.  They have         said they don’t like the proposal, that it isn’t neighbourly and so on, but these are not refusal        reasons;

-            Members need to be objective:  the proposal passes the light test comfortably; it is 9.3m   away from the neighbour’s window; it is 2.3m tall; it is not overbearing.  Members may not       like it but this is not a reason to refuse and nothing said so far tonight would be    defendable at appeal;

-            the NPPF encouragers planners to be positive, but this has been a negative debate.          Members need to take a more positive view.

BF:  was not on Planning View.  What is the existing situation?  Are bins left in the lane?

PT:  there is a little brick bin store which has already been demolished.  Notes the store is 1.75m high excluding the roof.  Are bins 1.75m high?  With apologies to MJC, this will affect someone’s life in the cottage behind and the roof on the bin store is just wrong.  It is anti-social, and very annoying that there is no planning reason to stand up at appeal.  We are being forced to defend the indefensible, and it is Members’ duty to say so.

GB:  it is also their duty to ensure that there are sufficient grounds to refuse.

MS:  will add CP7 to CP4 as a refusal reason.

CS, in response:

-            the height of the ridge of the bin store is 2.3m, with the window and eaves height lower – the roof will slope away from the property.

Vote on MS’s move to refuse on CP4 and CP7

6 in support

7 in objection (including Chairman’s casting vote)

1 abstention

PERMIT