Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of application S.17/1766/FUL - Revise the glazing system to the second floor extension (Revised drawings received 30.1.23).

The Development Team Manager introduced the item, it was agreed to discuss both applications S.22/2538/VAR and S.22/2480/LBC together but take separate votes on each item.

The Development Team Manager advised that Rodborough Court was a grade II listed building which sat in an elevated position in a residential area of Rodborough.  The site was within the settlement development limits of Stroud. The Development Team Manager gave a brief history of the planning permission granted on the site previously and advised that the applications being considered were for an amendment to the previously approved scheme.

The Development Team Manager confirmed that the amendments under consideration related to the appearance of the extension.  As originally approved, the glazed box was to be constructed using channelled glass, these were thin, vertical glass panels.  It was now proposed to use larger frames and panes of glass.  As this was materially different in appearance to the previous approval, and would be inconsistent with the conditioned plans, planning permission and listed building consent were required. The Development Team Manager highlighted using the plans and images of the site where the changes to the design would be made. It was confirmed that Officers had concluded that the proposed design amendments would not harm the special interest of Rodborough Court or impact on the setting of any other nearby listed building.

Public comments were received and reported in the late pages querying the consultation with Historic England.  A consultation with Historic England was generated due to the proximity of the application site to the grade II* listed church; Historic England responded deferring the matter to the authority’s own specialist advisors, the conservation officer had raised no objection to the proposal.

Having assessed the proposal, officers had concluded that the alteration would have no greater impact on amenities of nearby occupiers than the previous approval.  While the altered design enabled opening sections, there was sufficient separation from neighbouring properties to protect living conditions.  Furthermore, the existing permission did not require the channel glass to be obscured, so a benefit could be achieved by a new condition requiring obscure glazing.

Mr O’Driscoll, a neighbour, spoke on behalf of local residents in opposition of the applications for the following reasons:

·         The changes to design would impact their quality of life.

·         The changes had a negative impact on the design moving away from a single block form without openings.

·         The openings in the glass would cause noise pollution and would impact local residents.

·         The proposed glass would increase light pollution.

Mr O’Driscoll asked the committee to require the applicant to produce an independent report showing the impact the changes would have on light and acoustic pollution.

Mr Cabrini-Dale, the applicant, spoke in support of the applications and advised that the site was as an assembly plant where production was carried out by hand.

David Austin, the Agent, spoke in support of the applications and highlighted the flaws with the original design using Channel Glass. He advised that with Channel Glass to reach the desired thermal grade the glass would need to be filled with a cotton wool like filling and the building would need to be artificially heated and cooled. He confirmed that the glass would be supplied by a local firm and would be treated to reduce heat build up and heat escaping. The Agent further advised that light pollution would be minimal with the use of low energy lighting and downlights.

In response to Councillor Fenton the Specialist Conservation Officer advised that when the original application was approved it was not noted that an additional filling would be required for the channel glass.

Councillor Cornell asked for further information regarding the sliding doors and how this would look. The Development Team Manager confirmed that there would not be any additional external accessways and that the clear glazing would allow further views that the channel glass but most of the elevations would be overlooking the application site itself.

Councillor Schoemaker asked whether the Committee could consider adding additional conditions to the times in which the sliding doors could be opened. The Development Team Manager reminded the Committee of the test conditions are required to meet and advised that this would be unlikely to meet those requirements.

In response to questions from Councillor Patrick Loraine the Development Team Manager confirmed the following:

·         The Juliet balcony would not be an external structure as you would be unable to step onto it.

·         The obscure glass was not proposed for the whole of the rear of the building but where there was clear glass views that would likely be obstructed by the rest of the building.

·         Windows highlighted in red on the plans shown to the Committee would slide open to allow ventilation.

In responses to questions regarding light pollution from Councillor Fenton the Development Team Manager advised that the original application did not impose any conditions regarding light pollution and the glazing was not required to be obscure. It was also confirmed that the site was within the settlement boundary where some light pollution would be expected.

Councillor Schoemaker proposed the Officers advice to approve the application S.22/2538/VAR and Councillor Fenton seconded.

Councillor Schoemaker suggested that the Committee were constrained by the original approved application and had been reluctantly convinced that current planning legislation would not allow them to issue any additional conditions.

Councillor Fenton highlighted the merits of the design including its increased energy efficiency.

Councillor Cornell stated that it was hard to come to a decision and that she had appreciated the comments from local residents but expressed the importance of good ventilation in a work environment.

Councillor Patrick drew on her recollection from the site visit and was satisfied that some of the glazing would be obscured although expressed a wish for further ventilation and obscured glass.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To Permit the application.