Letter of objection to planning application seeking to build a detached house on a tiny plot on land adjacent to 3 Mead Road

Tomorrow evening (23rd Aug) the planning committee at Cheltenham Borough Council will be considering an application to build a detached house on a tiny plot on land adjacent to 3 Mead Road.

Although I hope to speak against the planning application I am not sure if I will be able to so have sent in an objection - emailed to all members of the committee.

22^nd August 2012

Planning committee August 23^rd 2012 – re application relating to land adjacent to 3 Mead Rd

Dear Cllr,

As a local ward member I am hoping to be able to address you at tomorrow night’s planning committee meeting in respect of the application for a dwelling adjacent to 3, Mead Rd.

However, because of a family commitment I may not be able to be present, hence I wanted to put something in writing to you ahead of the meeting which I hope you will give proper consideration to when making your decision about the application.

As you will see from the planning history for the site there have been numerous applications to develop the site. There is an extant permission given by this planning committee in January 2011. In the Officers report from that extant application it states:

1.3 Applications have been made in the recent past to develop the site with a dwelling (see planning history section). One of those was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State in December 2007 (07/00173/FUL) when the Inspector, in dismissing the appeal drew attention to the impact on the amenity of occupiers of nos 183 and 185 Old Bath Road and 3 Mead Road due principally to its dominant and cramped appearance in the street. The applicant has chosen now to apply for a lower, smaller structure in the hope that such adverse impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. 

Despite the applicant seeking to address the Inspectors concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties the officers strong recommendation was to refuse the application.

I am not entirely sure why the application came to committee but the officer’s report was very clear that the application was not consistent with policies. Officer’s comments at part 6 of his report on the current application before you are fairly damning about the application you now have to consider.  At 6.1 it says:

The development is such that the proposed dwelling would occupy a large amount of the available site. It still remains the Officer’s view that the site is not of sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate a dwelling. Because of the size of the site it follows that development proposed is contrived; it would be alien within the street scene and would be a cramped unacceptable form of development. As a direct result of the cramped nature of the development it would have an adverse impact on neighbour’s amenity. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the provisions of Local Plan Policies CP4 and CP7 and the provisions of the adopted SPD on Garden and Infill Development in Cheltenham.

In view of this extremely negative view of the application and the specific consideration given to the extant permission by committee I am slightly bewildered as to why the recommendation is to permit this current application. The justification within the report about the various heights within the new scheme compared to the extant scheme are not in themselves enough to warrant a complete U-turn on what is clearly stated at 6.1 in relation to this application.

By making its decision to allow the previous application committee has decided this very small site is suitable for some development. But the previous application which was approved did have some (albeit reluctant) support from those people living nearby specifically because of the low height of the entire building.

The revised plans will adversely affect particularly the occupiers at number 3 Mead Rd who are understandably extremely concerned about these plans. There view, which I think is valid, is that the new plans will significantly affect their quality of life compared to the extant plans.  

I have taken the liberty of reproducing the minutes of the meeting (below after the body of this letter) where the extant permission was approved so you will understand the current context of permission being granted. The vote was 8 for and 6 against so it was only passed by a majority of 2, going against officer recommendation.

The thing that struck me from reading the minutes is Cllr Surgenor’s comments where he is quoted as saying he “Couldn’t imagine anything better that could fit in this space, and would therefore support BF’s move to approve.”

This seems to sums up why the previous application was narrowly supported against officer advice. Specifically that it was the detail of the extant permission including the fact it was a low rise development (which accordingly had some support from local residents) was the best that could be hoped for to be developed there.

Those living closest to the site do not feel this new scheme is better; they are the ones, not the planning officer or the Architects Panel who will have to live right next door to any development on the site. It is vital that as local representatives you listen to what local people say they want for their area.

There is an extant permission on the site which if it is built will remove the garages – hence address concerns raised by members at the committee meeting in January 2010 about the visual impact of the garages.

However, this new application is a step too far. I really do not believe if this application now before you had been put to committee first that it would have been permitted. I believe the principle of development of the site was given against officer advice specifically because of the low rise development being put forward and that was the only reason that some local people gave that application their support.

Please I urge you to consider this application very carefully and refuse it on the grounds that it is contrary to Local Plan Policies CP4 and CP7 and the provisions of the adopted SPD on Garden and Infill Development in Cheltenham.

 Yours sincerely,

Unnecessary

Cllr Klara Sudbury

College Ward.

(planning committee minutes follow below)

·         Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday, 20th January, 2011 6.00 pm (Item 42.)

Minutes:

Application Number:				10/01754/FUL
Location:		3 Mead RoadCheltenham Gloucestershire
Proposal:		Erection of a detached two bed dwelling following demolition of existing garage/workshop on land adjacent 3 Mead Road
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:					Refuse
Committee Decision:				Permit
Letters of Rep:			9	Update to Report:		Additional letter of representation	Members present:	14

Public Speaking:

None

Member debate:

BF:  moved to approve and replace the disaster of a garage.  Said this was not garden grabbing, as the current building was used as a store with vehicles constantly in and out.  Felt the application was a good design for a tight spot, and that it would improve the look of this end of Mead Road. 

MS:  agreed with BF, saying that the committee had approved many small sites in far worse conditions than this.  Felt the proposal would continue the building line of the street and look much better than what was currently there.

JF:  supported the officers.  Thought it a difficult site but that the proposal was like fitting a quart in a pint pot.  Considered the design acceptable, and agreed that something should be built there, but not this - something else could be designed to fit better.  Was concerned that the proposed dwelling left no room at the sides, and was built right up to the boundary.

LG:  added to BF’s and MS’s comments, considering the proposal something of a planning gain – the removal of a terrible garage and the addition of something to complete the line of development along the road, which would be a positive advantage to the area.  Reminded members of the need to be consistent, pointing out that similar-scale developments had been permitted elsewhere.

GB:  had some difficulties with this application.  Thought it a good and innovative design and liked the product, but felt that it didn’t fit on this site or work as an infill development.  Said the difference in height made it incongruous to the rest of the development in the area, and felt on balance that the design didn’t work on the site.

PJ:  took the opposite view to GB.  Regarding the stepping of building, said there had been a compromise in the design to the benefit of neighbours on both sides.   As there was a lot of render included, and as the proposed dwelling was very close to the boundaries, requested that through-colour render be included as a condition, to reduce the need for future maintenance.

CC:  was also in support of the application.  Liked the design – thought it sympathetic, and suggested that it would fit nicely between the neighbouring properties.  Pointed out that only one of the three garages would be lost.  Had one further observation – that, on planning view, the vans members had noted in front of the garages were there in connection with a site across the road and not related to the application site.  Said he would support BF’s move to permit.

PT:  was in the opposing camp.  Agreed that the design was innovative but was concerned about the effect on the houses on the left and the garden of the adjacent house on Old Bath Road - officers had referred to this on the Planning View bus.  Didn’t think it would do very much for the area, and asked how tall the existing house at the side was – it appeared a lot smaller when looking towards 185 Old Bath Road.  Would support the officer recommendation.

LS:  had very mixed feelings.  Thought it an awkward, triangular plot, and noted that a couple of members had indicated they would support the proposal if it was built elsewhere.  Couldn’t imagine anything better that could fit in this space, and would therefore support BF’s move to approve.

IRC, in response:

-          reminded members that no conditions had been included because the recommendation was to refuse;

-          agreed that it was an awkward plot, but pointed out that it didn’t necessarily have to be developed.  Said the actual dwelling filled the site, less than one metre from the boundary at the closest point.    Pointed out that the boundary was currently marked by a dense hedge, but that this would be removed;

-          said the fact remained that this was too small a plot to support a dwelling in this suburban location – even though it might be acceptable in a town centre;

-          felt that the proposal would have an impact on the neighbours, comparing it with the refused application at 243 London Road, and said it therefore contravened policy CP4;

-          regarding conditions, said that if members approved the application, certain conditions would need to be imposed, including the removal of permitted development rights as dormer windows, for example, would be extremely close to the boundary.

BD:  admitted to changing her mind three times during the debate, but concluded that the proposal was probably OK.  Regarding the impact on the houses on Old Bath Road, pointed out that the house at the end had two dilapidated garages between it and the development site, and wouldn’t be able to see much anyway.  Said it would be a different matter if it were a nice garden.

LS:  before moving to the vote on BF’s move to approve, asked if members would be happy to leave conditions to the officers or wanted to suggest any specific conditions themselves, other than concerning dormer windows and through-colour render.

IRC, in response:

-          wondered if render was appropriate only 0.5m away from the next door neighbour.

PJ:  replied that it was suited to this situation, particularly as the owner wouldn’t have to look at the wall – the neighbour would.

BF:  pointed out that the through-colour rendered walls conditioned in the YMCA proposal actually forms the boundary.

Vote taken on BF’s move to permit

Vote:8 in support, 6 against, 0 abstentions