Skip to main content

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

To consider and determine the applications contained within the enclosed schedule:

 

Application No

Description

Ward Councillor(s)

Case Officer / Page No:

21/02440/FUL

Two storey side extension, alterations to front porch, replacement windows and associated works at Comberow Cottage Church Road Icomb Glos GL54 1JL

Councillor David Cunningham

Amy Hill / Page x

 

21/00139/FUL

 

 

Retrospective permission for garden room at The Dower House High Street Bourton-On-The-Water Cheltenham Glos GL54 2AP

 

 

Councillor Nick Maunder

 

 

Amy Hill / Page x

 

21/00143/FUL

 

Extensions to existing garage block at The Dower House High Street Bourton-On-The-Water Cheltenham Glos GL54 2AP

 

Councillor Nick Maunder

 

Amy Hill / Page x

 

Minutes:

21/02440/FUL

 

Comberow Cottage, Church Road, Icomb, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL54 1JL

 

The Planning Case Officer, Amy Hill, introduced the application:

 

Two storey side extension, alterations to front porch, replacement windows and associated works at Comberow Cottage, Church Road, Icomb, Glos, GL54 1JL.

 

The Committee noted the location relating to the application, the current view of the site and the proposed style of the proposed works.

 

The Committee noted the current floor plan and the proposed floor plan following completion of the works.

 

The Committee further noted the floor plans related to the 2006 planning application and the comparison with the proposed floor plans outlined within this application.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

 

Victoria Campbell (Applicant)

 

Councillor David Cunningham (Ward Member)

 

A Panel site visit was undertaken by Members in advance of this meeting.

 

The Committee noted that Members had been given the opportunity to ascertain where the proposed gable end would be situated if the works took place.

 

A range of views were expressed by Members, including that the mass of the proposed works would be over-bearing on the neighbouring property.

 

The Committee noted that the application from 2006 in relation to the same property (application approved but works not completed) would have to be considered alongside the current application, particularly if the Committee was to refuse the current application.

 

The Committee noted that whilst the 2006 application was relevant, Members should consider the existing application on its own merits and alongside current planning legislation.

 

Members noted that the requirements of the 2006 Local Plan had not changed significantly when comparisons were made to the current version of the Plan.

 

In relation to the materials to be used as part of the proposed works, the Committee noted that natural stone would be used.

 

The Committee noted that in relation to the mains electrical connection to the building, the responsibility for this lay with the electricity company and they would make an appropriate connection as per the permitted development rights.

 

Given the proximity of the property to the neighbouring home, the Committee agreed that a construction statement should be conditioned to the application.

 

The Committee noted that if the proposed works were undertaken, sunlight would still reach the neighbouring courtyard (of the neighbouring property). A light survey had been undertaken. Section 12 of the NPF was relevant to the application.

 

The Committee noted that the hedge around the plot was owned by the owners of Lawn Cottage.

 

The Committee noted the differing views of Members in relation to the application and the difficulties associated with taking a decision.

 

Following comments made by Councillor Sue Jepson in relation to a split decision (agreeing the alterations to the front porch and windows but removing the two-storey side extension), the Committee noted that the two-storey extension aspect of the application was most critical to the applicant. It was not therefore considered appropriate to consider a split-decision.

 

The Committee noted that although the proposed works would increase the size of the existing property, it would not have a completely adverse impact on the neighbouring courtyard.

 

Councillor Clive Webster proposed that the Committee approved the Officer recommendations with the inclusion of the previously discussed construction methodology. 

 

This was seconded by Councillor Stephen Hirst.

 

Record of Voting - for: 7, against: 4, abstention: 0, absent: 0.

 

The application was approved.

 

 

21/00139/FUL

 

The Dower House, High Street, Bourton-On-The-Water, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL54 2AP

 

The Planning Case Officer, Amy Hill, introduced the application:

 

Retrospective permission for garden room at The Dower House, High Street Bourton-On-The-Water Cheltenham Glos GL54 2AP.

 

The Committee noted that the update report included a correction to the planning history associated with the site.

 

The Committee further noted the location relating to the application, the current view of the site and the photographs of the constructed garden room.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

 

Tower Associates (Agent) – statement read by Democratic Services

 

Councillor Nick Maunder (Ward Member)

 

The Committee noted that a site visit undertaken by the Officer had indicated that the garden room was not being used as rented/holiday accommodation.

 

In relation to the Cotswold vernacular, the Committee noted that significant development had been undertaken at the property and as such, the garden room was considered to meet the Cotswold vernacular requirement (although it was not considered to be a ‘traditional’ build’).

 

The Committee noted that a 1960’s bungalow had previously occupied the plot where the garden room now stood.

 

The Committee noted that a condition could be placed on the application to prevent permitted development rights being utilised.

 

The Committee further noted that it could not limit the installation of home appliances (such as a washing machine for example).

 

The Committee noted that the railings nearest to the garden room were less than one metre tall, which did not require planning consent.

 

Although not clear on the plans, the Committee noted that the river boundary formed part of the property due to how the plans had been drawn. This would have been agreed with the environment agency and was a separate matter from this retrospective planning application.

 

The Committee noted that planning permission had been obtained for other additional buildings within the garden of the property (which had already been constructed).

 

The current retrospective application required planning permission primarily because of its height.

 

After a previous site visit, the Officer had requested that revised plans were submitted to reflect the building as it stood, i.e. after the chimney had been added without planning permission having been sought and obtained.

 

Councillor Clive Webster proposed that a Panel site visit be undertaken to ascertain the impact on the boundaries to the neighbouring property and to the public right of way and to see the building materials used as part of the development, to review the  physical view of the site and to also determine how the buildings were spaced on the existing plot.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Sue Jepson

 

Record of Voting - for: 10, against: 1, abstention: 0, absent: 0.

 

As part of the site visit, Members requested clarification on what buildings on the site did and did not have planning permission.

 

The item was deferred pending a Panel site inspection visit taking place.

 

21/00143/FUL

 

The Dower House, High Street, Bourton-On-The-Water, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL54 2AP

 

The Planning Case Officer, Amy Hill, introduced the application:

 

Extensions to existing garage block at The Dower House, High Street, Bourton-On-The-Water, Cheltenham, Glos, GL54 2AP.

 

The Committee further noted the location relating to the application, the current view of the site and the style of the constructed garage.

 

The Committee noted the photographs which showed developments which had taken place over time.

 

The Committee further noted that work on the garage head recently ceased.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

 

Tower Associates (Agent) – statement read by Democratic Services

 

Councillor Nick Maunder (Ward Member)

 

The Committee noted that the application was part-retrospective.

 

The Committee further noted that the application needed to be considered in terms of of the design, form and scale of any building (whether a dwelling or an ancillary outbuilding) is acceptable and compliant with policy. It was the view of Officers that although an ancillary building, the plot of land was an appropriate size for a garage of this size.

 

The Committee noted that the first floor of the ancillary building was being used for sleeping.

 

The Committee further noted that another planning application would be required if any of the buildings on the site were sub-divided and subsequently let out.

 

Members and Officers would need to remain cognisant of any impact on the conservation area. The refusal of any application was often based on whether or not any instances of harm could be identified.

 

The Committee noted that building regulations would stipulate how accommodation could be incorporated into a garage.

 

In relation to electric vehicle charging points being incorporated as part of the development, the Officer view was that they could not be conditioned, although Officers could liaise with the applicants to determine if it might be appropriate for them to include them.

 

The Committee noted that the retrospective application was for the inclusion of an additional bay and a half of parking space. Members could condition the installation of electric vehicle charging points, with the Committee noting that the applicant could appeal against this as being a ‘reasonable’ condition. The planning inspector would then take a decision in respect of this.

 

Councillor Sue Jepson proposed that a Panel site visit be undertaken to ascertain if over-development had taken place, to assess if there was any harm to the conservation area and the impact on the surrounding listed buildings.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Stephen Hirst.

 

Record of Voting - for: 7, against: 1, abstention: 3, absent: 0.

 

The item was deferred pending a Panel site inspection visit taking place.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: