Agenda item

MJC described the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Rawson to give Members the opportunity to consider the design merits of the proposal.  As set out in the Officer report, there have been similar applications in the area with different decisions – the reasons for this are set out in the report.  The Officer view, however, is that this application does not comply with local policy or the SPD on Residential Alterations and Extensions, and the recommendation is therefore to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Townsend, applicant, in support:

Told Members that 27 Arle Road belonged to her father, and that she moved away from Cheltenham to Sheffield at the age of 21 and has been wanting to return ever since.  She now has the chance to do this, but her father’s house is not adequate for her needs – with her partner, five children, and 10 grandchildren, it is just too small.  Wants to create a family home, and also needs additional space to be able to offer respite care to her disabled nephew from time to time. Properties either side of 27 Arle Road have been extended – there is a double extension next door, and a downstairs extension a few doors down.   The houses are staggered at the back, her extension will not overlook the neighbours, and the property will look the same as next door from the front and side.  Was told by Officers that it was OK to build the single-storey extension the full width of the house, but the upper storey should be half the width.  Did not understand which side this should be, so re-submitted the same application.  Neighbours are in favour of the plans, and Councillor Rawson has looked at the drawings and given the proposal his backing.  The downstairs alternations will allow her nephew to visit.  Wants to extend the house  through need, not for profit – is not intending to sell it but to create a family home.

Member debate:

KS:  notes that the letter of objection is from a resident living across the road; the neighbours on either side of the proposal have not objected.

CH:  looked at this extension and the extension next door, which was built before the introduction of the SPD in 2008.  Notes the houses are staggered, and that the application which was refused and dismissed appeal a few doors up relates to a house which is much closer to the road where the extension would have been visible from the highway.  There are lots of extensions like this around the town. There are some extensions which follow the subservience rule and look worse than they would if they followed the line of the building.  Did not look at the SPD when considering this application; is going more on how he feels about the appearance of the proposal.  Notes that it doesn’t seem to interfere with the neighbours or cause any problems around.  If the majority of Members feel that sticking to the SPD is the absolute and most important thing, together with the appeal decision on the property nearby, then OK, but sees many examples like this elsewhere.

PT:  cannot see any reason to turn this application down, SPD or not.   We don’t have to take all the policies as pickled in aspic.  With the best will in world, cannot see anything wrong with this – Arle Road is in her ward, and the proposed extension is reasonable.  Would like to move to permit.

AC:  planning view was very useful in this case, as the house next door has the same extension.  Can see no reason to interfere here.  The proposal is entirely reasonable and has his support.

AM: agrees with AC.  The proposal isn’t in breech of CP7.  Regarding subservience, it is similar to the extension next door and enhances the overall view.  There are no objections from the neighbours; the only objection is from the resident at No. 28 who had his own application turned down, but this is not a reason to refuse this application.

MS:  would like to hear Officer comments regarding the dismissed appeal a few doors down for an extension almostidentical to this one.

MC, in response:

-          to MS, the appeal relates to a very similar application.  The Inspector looked at the SPD guidance and endorsed it.  It is a very relevant decision;

-          would like Members to understand that Officers look at applications on a case by case basis.  Has sympathy with the views expressed, but there is an issue with consistency, Officer decisions, and interpretation of the SPD;

-          the applicant had the opportunity to negotiate an extension in line with Officer advice but chose not to.  It is wrong for Members to pick and choose which cases are appropriate and which are not.  Recent permissions at Hatherley Road and Moorend Road have been contrary to Officer recommendation, and show that Members are interpreting the SPD differently;

-          if Members choose to approve this application, that is their decision, but they should approach the SPD in a consistent way; it represents the Council’s advice and is endorsed by Planning Inspectors;

-          is concerned that decisions like this will undermine the work of Officers, and there are more and more examples of this coming to Committee.  It is important in terms of the Committee’s professionalism in relation to how they interpret policy.

PT:  appreciates MC’s comments but circumstances alter cases, and sometimes policy isn’t entirely right.  There is a consistency in this house being extended in the same way as the house next door.  Consistency with the SPD wasn’t an issue when the neighbour extended his property, and cannot see it causes such a problem to step outside the boundaries.  To approve this application when the house next door has the same type of extension is consistent.

KS:  was not on planning view but knows the area well.  Regarding subservience, we look for this as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.  Members are told on planning training that each application should be considered on its own merits.  Recalls an application for an extension which wasn’t subservient – it was approved against Officer advice, but with full neighbour support who thought it would look better.  In some instances, subservience can deliver what we want, but in other cases it isn’t the best option.  There are cases where this kind of development can have as much impact on neighbours as the previous proposal considered by Members tonight – each case must be considered on its own merits.

BF:  according to the NPPF, only 10% of applications are decided by Committee.  Members don’t rule the roost; most applications are decided by Officers.  Yes, there are rules, but we don’t have to blindly follow.

GB:  the Officer recommendation is to refuse and there has been a move to permit.  CL will clarify how to proceed under the new voting system.

CL, in response:

-          the Officer recommendation is to refuse; Members will vote on this first.  If carried, the application is refused; if not carried, a new motion can be taken from the floor.

Vote on Officer recommendation to refuse

5 in support

9 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

PT:  moves to permit

MC, in response:

-          conditions will be needed if the application is permitted.  Suggests the standard condition requiring work to be commenced within five years and according to the drawings.

KS:  should there be a condition about materials?

GB:  it is up to PT to decide whether to include this.

PT:  suggests any conditions should be agreed by Officers before the decision is sent - ‘materials to match’ would be appropriate.

Vote on PT’s move to permit, with conditions as above

9 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 8.30pm