Plans for a replacement roof and changes to a balcony on a Cheltenham home have been given the go-ahead despite privacy concerns. Cheltenham Borough Council considered Neil Perkin’s proposals for the “reasonably” large, detached, two storey property at 68 Sandy Lane earlier at the planning committee meeting on December 19.
Officers recommended approving the scheme and councillors agreed. They voted to grant permission for alterations to an existing rear balcony, new ground floor canopies and remodelling works and a replacement roof.
The application had been referred to the committee by Councillor Paul Baker (LD, Charlton Kings) who raised concerns regarding impact on neighbouring properties. Tim Atkins, an objector, spoke at the meeting on behalf of neighbouring households.
He said their concerns focussed on the “disproportionate” size of the roof and the impact of the enlarged reorientated balcony. “The proposed roof significantly increases its mass, dominance and height compared to the original 1970s design,” he said.
“The house will nearly double in size. The second issue is the balcony which would double in size projecting two metres outwards and reorienting towards Leckhampton Hill.”
He said it would be 10 square metres of space “comfortably” housing a table, chairs and sofa. It would lead to more overlooking and direct sight lines into neighbouring properties, he added.
Cheltenham Borough Council considered Neil Perkin’s proposals for the “reasonably” large, detached, two storey property at 68 Sandy Lane earlier at the planning committee meeting on December 19, 2024
(Image: CBC/N Perkin)
Simon Firkins, speaking on behalf of the applicant, called on the committee to approve the proposals He said the property had been extended in the past by previous owners.
Mr Firkins said the current roof was failing, requiring the latest plans to replace it which he argued would improve the aesthetics of the building.
“The footprint of the building will not change,” he said. “In design terms, the application will unify the existing house and the range of designs locally means the design is not out of place.”
He said the proposal reduced the width while increasing the depth of the balcony. He said the proposal did not conflict with policies.
Simon Firkins, speaking on behalf of the applicant, called on the committee to approve the proposals.
(Image: CBC/N Perkin)
Councillor Baker (LD, Charlton Park) criticised the planning officer’s report and said he was “being a little disingenuous when he talks about the first floor balcony being slightly enlarged”.
“I think it is more than slightly enlarged,” he said. Cllr Baker also asked if the replacement roof would be 3.4 metres higher.
The planning officer said he considered the balcony increase to be modest as it includes an increase in depth by a metre moving further away from the neighbour but is also reducing in its width.
“We’ve also got to consider that there is already one there.” He said parts of the roof would be 3.4 metres. “The actual increase in height of the ridge line which runs across the property is 0.8 metres,” he added.
During the debate, Councillor Barbara Clark (LD, All Saints) said she felt the extension to the balcony to be “quite offensive”. “I would not want to live somewhere where people could actively use such a large space above my head.”
A council planning officer said he considered the increase to the balcony to be modest as it includes an increase in depth by a metre moving further away from the neighbour but is also reducing in its width.
(Image: CBC/N Perkin)
Councillor Simon Wheeler (LD, Hesters Way) said the proposals to the front of the property look more in place. But he said he did have concerns about the balcony at the back.
“However, there is already a balcony there,” he said. “To change the design I don’t think is going to make a massive difference.”
He said he was happy to go with the officer’s recommendation. However, Councillor Baker proposed deferring a decision to discuss diffretent options for the balcony.
However, there was a tie in the vote with four votes in favour and four against with two abstentions. Chairman Garth Barnes (LD, College) used his casting vote to break the deadlock and voted to oppose deferral, defeating the motion.
A subsequent proposal to approve the plans was granted by five votes to one with four abstentions.