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:

28.2          This application was for the erection of a two storey annexe and single storey storage building. The application had been deferred at the last meeting for a Planning Committee site visit in order to assess the impact on the neighbouring property and to receive more information in relation to the daylight/sunlight assessment. The Committee had visited the application site on 11 September 2020.

28.3          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 was deferred at the last meeting of the Planning Committee in order that Members may conduct a site visit primarily to assess the impact on the neighbouring property. The section on “Effect on the Living Conditions of Neighbouring Dwellings” in the Officer’s report stated that the two storey element of the building would comply with the 45 rule, which demonstrated that it would not result in an unacceptable reduction in daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring dwelling. An illustrative plan had been circulated at the site visit and was shown at the meeting. Further concerns relating to highways safety had been assessed by the Highway Authority who raised no objection and no objection had been raised by Environmental Health in relation to the size of the internal space. The proposed scheme complied with design and amenity policies; therefore the Officer recommendation was to permit.

28.4          The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the proposal to address the Committee. The local resident thanked the Committee for taking the time to visit the site and indicated that, whilst the applicant had advised the visit would make no difference, he hoped the Committee would be able to see why there was such a strong objection to the development and the impact it would have on the lives of him and his family. He indicated that he would not cover the issue of overshadowing as he had dealt with this in depth at the last meeting, nevertheless, overshadowing remained a major objection. He indicated that he would like to review the purpose of the proposal which the applicant had stated was for Airbnb purposes; the property had, for a number of years, been listed on their website and during August it had been leased out every weekend causing a great deal of distress and upset to the neighbours due to loud parties and noise pollution. The advert for the property offered free on street parking on a road which was already overpopulated by parked cars. The local resident also wished to address the claims made by the applicant at the last meeting that the scheme was required to tackle a privacy matter between Nos. 51 and 53 Cotswold Gardens. The raised decked area beside the kitchen of 53 Cotswold Gardens had always been there and was the only means to access the property from the garden area; the applicant had been fully aware of this when he had purchased the property. Had the applicant previously expressed any concerns about privacy then perhaps the matter could have been resolved without the need for the erection of a two storey annex. The final issue that the local resident wished to raise were significant concerns regarding flood risk of the road both pluvial and fluvial. As previously stated, the road had flooded in July 2020 with water entering properties in the street; the road had again flooded in August 2020. In support the local resident referred to the Environment Agency Flood Map website showing a red warning of flood risk to Nos. 49, 51 and 53 Cotswold Gardens and a letter dated 19 August 2020 to Gloucestershire County Council and subsequent response complaining of flooding to the road. He maintained that drainage was a significant problem in the street and having an additional system would only compound the problems already being experienced by several residents. In conclusion he asked the Committee to consider why a single man, living alone with no dependants in a large 3-bedroom property, currently on the market, would need to erect a two storey annex for storage and social care needs. The objections that had been received in relation to the scheme were from residents who had children or grandchildren who intended to get as much enjoyment from their homes and gardens as possible with no commercial intent. Should planning consent be granted the residents would have to endure the consequences of overloaded drains, overpopulated parking, noise pollution and increased flood risk whilst the applicant would have sold up and moved away.

28.5          A Planning Officer read a statement to the Committee that had been received from the applicant which indicated that the main reason for submitting the statement was to highlight inaccurate elements from the objections received. He referred to the fact that the report of the Planning Officer was very thorough and addressed all the areas in which objections had been received. Particular attention had been drawn to the privacy issues from which his property suffered, and he referred to the fact that the property already benefitted from an approved planning permission to build on exactly the same area. The statement set out the key issues which the building proposals were intended to achieve; to future proof family requirements for the property, particularly social care worries linked to an elderly mother (annex could be used as limited use granny flat); to support privacy from the property at No. 53, which was built higher than the existing properties resulting in a huge impact on No. 51, and to address the limited suitable storage in the current property’s configuration, giving suitable bike and outside storage space. The applicant then went on to address the objections and issues raised that did not apply: Tewkesbury Town Council had objected on the following grounds; parking – as set out in the Planning Officer’s report and consultees response (Gloucestershire Highways) there was suitable parking on the property for up to four vehicles (there was no intention to increase the number of vehicles that used the property); storage in two storey element – this would only be used as accommodation to support the main property and not as stand-alone property therefore internal storage of the property was more than adequate; Overdevelopment – as per previous point, supporting the main property’s accommodation and neighbours’ concerns; drainage – the problems highlighted in the objection were not connected with any issues relating to the domestic foul water drainage at No.51. The design of the system used in the building of No.53 to achieve foul water discharge was the problem. An inadequate pumping system was used to reach the main foul water drains in Cotswold Gardens; proximity/light – suitable distances would be maintained and building regulation requirements of the 45 degree rule of thumb had been completed and the assessment passed for this small development.  In summary, the applicant’s statement maintained that the development proposals were to support the main property’s daily use and were in keeping with the area. The condition in the Planning Officer’s report about the development not being used as a separate dwelling was welcomed.

28.6          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. A proposal was made in line with the Officer recommendation but, prior to the proposal being seconded, a Member asked a question about Airbnb, as she was receiving a number of complaints about them from residents in Laverton and it was a matter that was being raised more and more frequently. She questioned what the position was on usage for Airbnb purposes, whether any additional permissions were required and what avenues there were for residents to make complaints such as about noise. The Planning Officer advised that the use of a C3 dwelling, as was the case in this instance, for Airbnb purposes, was not actually a change of use as it was still classed as part of the same use. It was really about the degree of which a property was used for Airbnb and whether it was an incidental and ancillary use or whether it took away from the primary use. Likewise, any noise issues, whilst not related to planning, could be assessed by Environmental Health in relation to the existence of a statutory noise nuisance. The Planning Officer indicated that she had noticed noise had been raised by an objector and, should this become a problem, Environmental Health could be asked to undertake an assessment. In response to further questions the Legal Adviser stated that, if it was a permanent all year round use for Airbnb, it was very likely that this would be a change of use but otherwise each case would need to be considered on its own merits taking account of the degree of Airbnb usage; it would be a matter of fact and degree. A Member stated that it seemed the degree of usage as an Airbnb could affect which category a property fell within and whether a change of use was required. He referred to the evidence presented by the objector about the level of use of this property for Airbnb purposes yet this did not seem to have been addressed in the Officer report in terms of whether a change of use should be considered; it seemed that the property was being used for a different purpose other than a straightforward simple dwelling. Secondly, the Member commented on the reference to noise pollution and the activities of Environmental Health and maintained that they had very limited powers to limit Airbnb activities which placed a significant onus on the planning determination and the decision of the Planning Committee. The Member therefore questioned at what stage was a residential dwelling categorised as something else as clearly in this case there was evidence of quite significant use of the property for Airbnb purposes. The Planning Team Leader (North Area) clarified that, in terms of this property specifically, the application that had been submitted to the Authority, and before the Committee today, was for the erection of a two storey annex as ancillary accommodation and this was what had been considered by the Planning Officer in their report to Members. In terms of Airbnb properties, the intensification of that use over and above what could be reasonably described as such residential use, would need to be assessed on an individual basis and, as had been indicated previously, it would be a matter of fact and degree. She indicated that if a complaint was received regarding an Airbnb then an enforcement investigation would need to be undertaken to understand how the property was being used and whether or not a potential material change of use had taken place. In the latter circumstances it would then be necessary to determine whether that was a suitable use for that property in that location. Each individual application of this type would need to be looked at on its own merits as each individual use of a property as an Airbnb could differ quite significantly. Therefore, it was something that would need to be looked at separately in relation to this or any other dwelling where a complaint was received about its use as an Airbnb. The Member indicated that he was grateful for the clarification and stated that, if this was a straightforward application in relation to a residential property, he could see no planning reason to refuse it but he was still troubled by the Airbnb usage. He questioned whether, if a complaint was received concerning the use of the property being inappropriate to its designated use, this would in effect become an enforcement matter. The Planning Team Leader (North Area) indicated that potentially yes, if a complaint was received that the primary use of the accommodation had changed to Airbnb holiday type accommodation, decisions would need to be made on how to deal with that usage. However, this was not what was before the Committee today and if Members decided to permit this application there was a proposed condition which would tie the annex as ancillary to the main residential use of the residential property.

28.7          In seconding the proposal, a Member referred to the Site Visit that had taken place on which he had noticed that the property opposite had made provision for extra off road parking and, with the higher level of the property at No.53, any impact on light would be minimal in his view and therefore he was in support of the application. Whilst another Member, who had also been on the Site Visit, disagreed and felt that the light impact of the proposed extension on No 53 would be unacceptable. Upon being put to the vote it was

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

Supporting documents: