Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/02137/FUL- Valley View, Chapel Street, Maugersbury

Summary

Erection of a side and rear extension at Valley View, Chapel Street, Maugersbury Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL54 1HR

 

Case Officer

Wayne Campbell

 

Ward Member

Councillor Dilys Neill

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

The application was for the erection of a side and rear extension at Valley View, Chapel Street, Maugersbury, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL54 1HR.

 

The recommendation was to permit the application.

 

The Case Officer introduced the application, and highlighted additional representations included in the agenda supplement, as well as the update to the NPPF. The Case Officer explained that for the purpose of the application, the changes to the NPPF only affected the paragraph numbers referenced, not the wording of the policies.

 

The Case Officer highlighted that the application had been on the agenda for the meeting of the Committee held on 11 October 2023, but had been withdrawn due to a lack of a heritage statement. This was subsequently submitted by the applicant on 3 November 2023, after which a full 21 day re-consultation was carried out by the Council. The comments received during the re-consultation had been included in the agenda pack and additional papers.

 

The Case Officer explained that the site was situated with the Stow on the Wold Conservation area, and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was a Non-Designated Heritage Asset. The site was also in proximity to a grade II listed building.

 

Hugh Chapman, an objector, addressed the Committee.

 

Richard Boother, the applicant’s agent, then addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Dilys Neill, the ward member, addressed the Committee highlighting the local representations made by both sides in the village and the issues the Committee to consider.

 

Before continuing onto member questions, members who attended the Sites Inspection Briefing (SIB) summarised their findings. Members stated that they felt the SIB added to their understanding of the potential impact on the Conservation Area and the listed building in proximity. Members stated that the current building was very small and not suitable for modern living standards, which the proposed extension would seek to remedy. Members made reference to the gap in the streetscape, which was important.

 

Member Questions

 

Members made reference to the large percentage increase that the extension would result in and asked for further clarification from officers as to the policies around this. The Interim Development Manager highlighted the design code, which under D19 stated that extension should be subservient, often in mass and height. Although the extension was large, in the officers’ opinion, it was sympathetically designed and therefore in accordance with the design code and Policy EN1 on non-designated heritage assets.

 

Members stated that some neighbouring properties had been extended and asked whether the officer had taken this into account in their recommendations. The Officer confirmed this to be the case, but that the design in the application was ultimately what had led to their recommendation. It was explained that a previous application had caused the Conservation Officer to object, but that the applicant then amended the design, and the Conservation Officer withdrew their objections as a result.

 

Members asked about the gap in the streetscape, which the Case Officer stated would be reduced but still remain, and the character of the Conservation Area would remain. The gap was confirmed to be an important aspect of the Conservation Area.

 

Members also asked about the energy efficiency of the building. The Case Officer stated that the efficiency would be improved through the application and that the applicant had provided an Energy Statement in support of the application. It was confirmed that this would form part of the approved documents in the event that permission was granted.

 

Member Comments

 

Some Members stated that the character would be changed through the relocation of windows. They added that the extension could lead to the loss of a small, affordable dwelling.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed that the application be permitted.

 

Councillor Mark Harris seconded the proposal.

 

Members stated that there would be benefit in extending the house due to the fact that the existing property was too small for modern living standards and in poor condition.

 

Members also added that the extension would still result in a modestly sized dwelling.

 

Members asked if the design of the dormer window could be re-evaluated. The Interim Development Manager stated that if Members thought that otherwise the application would be refused, this could be done, but added that it was in keeping with the design code. Members chose to then not pursue this point further.

 

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application

 

Voting record- For 9, Against 1, Abstain 1

 

For

Against

Abstain

Councillor Andrew Maclean

Councillor Julia Judd

Councillor Dilys Neill

Councillor Daryl Corps

 

Councillor David Fowles

 

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman

 

 

Councillor Gary Selwyn

 

 

Councillor Ian Watson

 

 

Councillor Ray Brassington

 

 

Councillor Mark Harris

 

 

Councillor Michael Vann

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages