Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Change of use from an existing annexe to a self-contained dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

22.44        This application was for change of use from an existing annexe to a self-contained dwelling. 

22.45        The Planning Officer advised that the site lay within a residential estate in Churchdown and No. 49 was the last dwelling in a row of terraced properties; it had front and rear amenity space but no on-site parking.  The dwelling had been extended and the extension converted to an annexe on appeal in 1990.  This proposal was within the existing residential curtilage and the site was on previously developed land, therefore, the principle of housing in this location was acceptable.  The principle of conversion or subdivision of existing dwellings was considered by saved local plan Policy HOU9, and Policy RES8 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan was relevant in terms of space standards for internal accommodation.  With regard to design, there were no external alterations to the building, although the amenity space would require subdivision.  The conversion of the annexe to a dwelling would reduce the private amenity area for both properties; however, there was access to public open space to the rear and would be adequate room for bin and cycle storage and private amenity.  The proposed accommodation would consist of one bedroom, one bathroom, a lounge and kitchen and internal alterations would close off the internal doorway to No. 49.  On balance, considering the existing use as an annexe and that it could be occupied by two people, the constraint of the existing layout and the available external space, it was deemed appropriate for independent residential use.  The site was in a residential development of mostly terraced properties which had no on-site parking provision, although some amenity spaces had been converted for parking in the area and there were separate garage blocks on the estate as well as roadside parking bays.  The Parish Council had raised concern that the proposal would add to parking and traffic difficulties in the area; however, County Highways had assessed the proposal and had no objection in terms of parking provision or highway safety but recommended a condition in respect of cycle storage.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions.

22.46        A Member understood that, for terraced housing, there was a requirement for a nine inch wall between the properties which went into the roof space and he questioned whether that had already been achieved.  In response, the Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that this was a building regulations matter dealt with under separate legislation and not something which the Committee needed to consider. 

22.47        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member explained that she was not against the application in principle, however, she was disappointed that Churchdown had been referenced as being on the urban fringes of Gloucester as this was not how local residents would describe it at all.  In terms of the issues of parking, as discussed at Page No. 153, Paragraph 7.8 and 7.16 of the Officer report, she indicated that she knew the area very well and only one of the properties had off-street parking so she considered the illustration that had been shown to be misrepresentative. The Parish Council had been to visit the site prior to considering the proposal and had not been able to get a car down the road.  She also pointed out that the space at the rear was actually a child’s play area and not public space for access to those properties as such.  Page No. 153, Paragraph 7.11 of the Officer report discussed the issue of size and stated that the internal floor area was below the requirement for a two storey dwelling for two people and she sought further clarification on this.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) recognised that the term ‘urban fringe’ had been used to describe Churchdown in the report as it did not sit comfortably with any of the definitions of settlements in the Joint Core Strategy.  Officers were aware this was something residents were sensitive to and it was a matter that they would look to address as part of the Joint Core Strategy review.  Parking had been considered by the Case Officer and County Highways and, although the annexe was tied to the existing dwelling, it could be used independently by a family member therefore there would be no further material harm if it was a separate dwelling.  The issue of two person occupancy was dealt with in the Officer report and national space standards set a guide as to the space that was require for two people; although this scheme fell below those standards, they could only be enforced when they formed part of an adopted development plan.  He confirmed that the space standards would be included in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan but that was yet to be adopted.  In this case, given the existing annexe could be used independently by family members, Officers had taken a view that the size was acceptable.  In response to a query as to whether work had already commenced, the Planning Officer advised that, at the time of her site visit, work was underway on the front porch to No. 49; however, she clarified that no external works were required in terms of the annexe itself.  Another Member questioned whether the garden would be divided to provide two amenity spaces and confirmation was provided that there would be subdivision of the amenity space to the front and rear, as stated in the Officer report.

22.48         It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.