Agenda item

Erection of double garage to side of main house (Revised plans received 13.01.2023).

The Development Team Manager introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a double garage at an end of terraced property in Hardwicke. He confirmed that the site was within the defined settlement limits of Hardwicke and that it benefitted from off-street parking within a shared parking courtyard which had been extended by the inclusion of a further gravelled drive. The proposed garage would replace one of the original parking spaces and extend over the gravelled drive resulting in 2 parking spaces within the building and a further 2 parking spaces to the front.

The Development Team Manager drew the Committees attention towards the plans for the development and advised that policies HC8 and ES3 had been considered. He advised Members that concerns had been raised on the impact of the garage on the outlook from nearby properties and highlighted the separation distances in place between the proposed garage and its nearest buildings. The shortest distance would be to the east where the wall of the garage would be approximately 12 metres from the property at Number 34, this exceeded the guidance provided in the Residential Design Guide (SPD).

Cllr John Perkin a representative from Hardwicke Parish Council spoke in opposition of the application. He advised that properties on the Wharfdale development with garages had only been provided single garages with an additional parking space and that this would therefore be the only double garage within the development. He stated that the garage would have a detrimental effect on the parking space allocated to number 34 as the garage would need to be built close to the white line making it more difficult for the users of the adjacent space to get into and out of their vehicle. Cllr Perkin also referred the committee to restrictive covenants which were in place on the development which were not a planning matter. Cllr Perkins suggested that a single garage would be more appropriate as it would lessen any impact on the adjacent parking space, would increase the distances from the garage to the nearest property and would also be in the spirit of the development. He drew the Committees attention to the objections received from Number 34 which the Parish Council supported.

The Development Team Manager confirmed the following:

• Covenants were a civil matter and would not prevent planning permission from being granted.
• The Committee did not have the powers to amend the design but would have to determine whether to grant permission to the application in front of them.
• The highways section of the report advised that the original planning permission imposed a condition that parking was to be provided and Officers believed that the development would still meet the minimum parking requirements as laid out in the local plan.

In response to Councillor Fenton the Development Team Manager advised that planning permission did not rely on land ownership however the case officer had been advised that the applicant did own the parking space being discussed.

Councillor Cornell asked for confirmation of the number of parking spaces. The Development Team Manager confirmed that 2 spaces would remain outside of the proposed garage and there would be space for an additional 2 vehicles inside the garage. There would therefore be no loss of parking spaces.

The Development Team Manager responded to Councillor Cornell to confirm that the character of the neighbouring parking space would change but there was nothing to suggest that it would become unusable.

Councillor Miles questioned whether they would require planning permission to convert the garage into living accommodation. The Development Team Manager advised that planning permission wouldn’t be required unless they added conditions to restrict the use of the garage. He also advised that as the garage was detached from the main building by a walkway it may be less likely to be used as living accommodation.

Councillor Patrick Proposed the Officers advice which was seconded by the Chair.

Councillor Green indicated her reservations were due to the distance from the garage to the property at number 34. 

Councillor Patrick advised that during the site visit she stood in front of the window at Number 34 to see what the impact would be, she highlighted that there was a large tree obstructing the view which would lessen any impact of the garage wall. Councillor Fenton also confirmed that she had looked at the impact for Number 34 during the site visit, she advised that the tree could be removed and that the garage would affect the open aspect of the area not just for Number 34 but for other neighbouring properties. Councillor Miles also expressed concerns regarding the impact on the property at Number 34.

Councillor Miles asked whether conditions may be able to apply to restrict different uses of the garage. The Head of Development Management advised that they needed to think about why they would want the condition to be applied and whether there was adequate justification to add any conditions to restrict use when the number of parking spaces provided outside the garage met the required standards in the Stroud District.

Councillor Schoemaker stated that Number 34 would currently be looking at cars or vans which would provide a similar impact as the proposed garage and therefore there was not an adequate reason to reject the application.

Councillor Cornell offered support for the application and advised that a garage would be an asset for the property and that due to other garages on the development it wouldn’t be out of character.

The Chair, Councillor Baxendale, raised concerns regarding the overbearing impact on neighbouring properties due to the creation of an enclosed space and advised that he would not be supporting Officers advice. He clarified that he had originally proposed Officers advice so that the Committee could enter debate and that the conversations during the debate had altered his view on whether to vote in favour or against Officers advice.

On being put to the vote, the motion was not carried with 3 votes against, 2 in favour and 2 abstentions.

The Chair, Councillor Baxendale made a further proposal to refuse the application, this was seconded by Councillor Green.

The Chair and members of the Committee discussed possible reasons for refusal and put forward the proposal of overbearing impact. The Development Team Manager reminded the Committee that the SPD suggests a minimum distance of 10 metres between a window and a wall which this application had exceeded.

The Chair advised that the standards were for general situations and advised that this situation was slightly different with the enclosed nature of the proposed development. Councillor Fenton stated that there was an overbearing impact because of the configuration of the site and that the amenity of parking spaces were already available for the property without the overbearing impact of a garage in the same location.

Councillor Patrick stated that the Committee should abide by the standards in place.

The Principal Planning Lawyer advised that the Committee would need to develop their reasons for refusal. He suggested that the Committee had discussed the overbearing impact, that the double garage would be out of character in the particular location and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents.

Councillor Patrick suggested that the proposed double garage would not be out of keeping as it would be built in the same mode as other buildings.

Councillor Baxendale considered whether policy ES13 could be used as a refusal reason.

Councillor Green confirmed that the SPD was guidance and therefore the limits within it were not rules set in stone.

Councillor Cornell suggested that it could be considered out of character as this had been mentioned by some members of the Committee and the Parish Council as there were not many double garages on the development site.

The Principal Planning Lawyer offered advice to the Committee suggesting that they may wish to carry out a further site visit so that everyone could be clear as to the extent the garage would impact the area and neighbouring properties.

Councillor Green proposed an amendment to defer the decision pending a further site visit. Councillor Schoemaker seconded the amendment.

The Chair encouraged Members to attend the next site visit if the amendment was agreed.

On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed with 5 votes in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED To defer the application for decision at the next meeting following an additional site visit.

The Committee took a short break, the meeting resumed at 8.02pm. Councillor Schoemaker left the meeting.