Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

20/00504/FUL - 51 Cotswold Gardens, Tewkesbury

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey annexe and single storey storage building.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Minutes:

22.3          This application was for the erection of a two storey annexe and single storey storage building. 

22.4          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a three storey dwelling located in Tewkesbury and sought the erection of a two storey annexe which was proposed for ancillary accommodation, incidental to the enjoyment of the main house.  The application required a Committee determination due to objections received from the Town Council which had raised concern in relation to overdevelopment, size of internal spaces and potential impact upon the highway.  The design section of the Officer report assessed the concern relating to overdevelopment and it was the Officer view that there was no conflict with policy in that regard.  The matters of internal space and highway safety had been considered by Environmental Health and County Highways respectively and neither of these expert consultees had raised an objection to the proposal.  The proposed scheme complied with planning policy, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

22.5          The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he had lived in a neighbouring property with his family since 2011 and was concerned about the negative impact of the proposal on his property on terms of feeling squashed in, out of place and the site being overdeveloped.  He was not allowed to extend any part of his property, as his deeds stated this would cause overdevelopment, and he questioned why this proposal was any different.  The building would project past the build line of his property, and other neighbouring properties, and his house had been moved forward prior to being built so he questioned whether the property was able to be built in the proposed location.  In his view, the proposed two storey annexe would reduce the amount of natural light to his kitchen and garden and would overshadow the house due to its height and positioning past the rear of the property and along the boundary fence.  He had already installed bifold doors to increase light as windows could not be installed along the kitchen wall facing No. 51 and he requested that a daylight and sunlight assessment be carried out.  He went on to indicate that the proposal would overload an already struggling drainage system that had been problematic in the past and pointed out that residents had been forced to unblock drains only last week after drain water entered properties in Cotswold Gardens causing damage.  His concern was that the proposal would only increase the repeated issues experienced with drainage - he and his neighbours had already written to the Council to complain about this issue – and an extra dwelling would cause further problems, should the road flood again, and would prevent water draining away effectively leading to the same devastation experienced in 2007.  Furthermore, the proposal would generate an increase in traffic and cause highway safety concerns as well as compromising the adequacy of parking, loading and turning.  He advised that the turning bay was already being used to park cars outside of No. 51 making it harder to access the road from his drive and increasing the risk of hitting parked vehicles.  The proposal would also cause noise and disturbance which were already issues due to the property being used as an Airbnb – if the development was allowed to go ahead, he was concerned this would be exacerbated due to more occupants.  He pointed out that a tree needed to be removed from his boundary fence in order to make way for the proposal and he questioned whether any covenants were in place for the boundary fence as he had believed that was the case when the land had been sold to allow his property to be built.  He explained that he had always tried to be open and honest with the applicant and he was deeply concerned that the issues he had raised seemed to have been ignored.  The local resident indicated that he would like the Committee to consider deferring the application.

22.6          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that his main reason for attending the meeting was to highlight inaccurate elements from the objections received to his proposal.  He firstly wished to thank the Planning Officer for a thorough and detailed report which highlighted the issues he had experienced with privacy since the neighbouring property had been built.  In terms of the drainage concerns raised by the previous speaker, he explained that the most recent incident was unrelated to his property and was as a result of storm water drainage as opposed to foul water drainage.  Furthermore, the cars parked in the turning circle were nothing to do with his property which only had one vehicle associated with its use.  He went on to explain that two huge decking areas in the garden of the neighbouring property had resulted in overlooking and at least one of those had been constructed without planning permission.  His proposal would help to overcome this issue as well as addressing the limited storage in the current configuration, particularly bicycle storage, and futureproofing his family’s needs as the annexe could be used as a granny flat.  In terms of objections, the issue of parking raised by the Town Council had been discussed in the Officer report and County Highways had confirmed there was suitable parking for up to four vehicles; the storage building would only be used to support the main property and did not represent overdevelopment; and the drainage problems highlighted were not connected to the domestic foul water drainage at his property, rather it was the design of the system used in the neighbouring property for pumping foul water that was the issue.  He pointed out that he had consulted with his neighbours on the proposal from the outset and reiterated that his proposals would support the daily use of the main property so the restrictions mentioned in the Officer report in terms of it not being used as a separate dwelling were welcomed – he fully recognised there would be implications if it were to be used as a standalone property.

22.7           A Member noted that the local resident had mentioned that the property was being used as an Airbnb and she sought confirmation as to whether that was the case.  In response, the Planning Officer clarified that a residential dwelling could be used as an Airbnb if this was an incidental and ancillary use; notwithstanding this, there was a judgement to be made on any intensification of that use and she provided assurance that any concerns in relation to that could be referred to the Planning Enforcement team to investigate if there were concerns.

22.8           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property and to receive more information in relation to the daylight/sunlight assessment.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property and to receive more information in relation to the daylight/sunlight assessment.

Supporting documents: