Home extensions at 41 Hales Close, Cheltenham

The site

The two-storey home is set back at the end of a residential cul-de-sac and is outside a conservation area and parish.

“DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application relates to 41 Hales Close; a two storey semi-detached, residential dwelling. The application property, and adjoining property, is set back in the street scene given its location at the end of the residential cul-de-sac of Hales Close. The site does not fall within a conservation area or Parish Council.”

“The application is at planning committee at the request of Councillor Day for the following reasons: - Design is overbearing and out of keeping with the existing street scene and neighbouring properties one of which is attached, - proximity of single storey rear extension to neighbouring boundary and windows resulting in loss of light, - Loss of privacy to the two neighbouring properties, - Inadequate provision of parking for three double bedrooms with en-suites which…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A 1997 porch and garage application was approved, while a 2025 application for larger extensions was withdrawn after concerns about scale, design and neighbours.

“Relevant Planning History: 97/00313/PF 22nd May 1997 PER Erection Of Porch And Garage ***Issued Under Delegated Authority 13 May 1997***”

“25/00641/FUL 13th June 2025 WDN Single storey and two storey front extensions, single storey and two storey rear extensions, internal alterations and fenestration amendments.”

Officer report

Effects on neighbours

Light tests were passed, the rear extension was not considered overbearing, and officers found no unacceptable loss of privacy, outlook or amenity.

“Impact on neighbouring property 6.11 Policy SD14 of the JCS and policy SL1 of the Cheltenham Plan require development not to cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining land users; this echoes section 12 of the NPPF which requires development to be of a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. A number of neighbour objections raise concerns with regards to a loss of light, loss of privacy, overbearing impact, and overlooking.”

“It is considered that the first floor rear extension, given its scale and form, would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining land users therefore complying with the relevant amenity policies. Single storey rear extension 6.19 The single storey rear extension would have a maximum height of approximately 3.6 metres, and minimum height of approximately 2.8 metres due to the pitched roof design.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the ward member addressed the committee, opposing the proposal because of its effects on neighbours, the street, parking and safety.

The vote

Members voted on the officer recommendation to permit the application, with eight votes for, none against and two abstentions.

“The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit the application.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was permitted because the development was considered acceptable in design and would not cause unacceptable harm to adjoining properties.

“The development seeks extensions to an existing private residential dwelling and therefore officers are satisfied that due regard has been given to the PSED duties. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 The proposed development is of a scale and form that achieves an acceptable design in relation to the parent dwelling, and would ensure that there would not be an unacceptable loss of amenity to the three adjoining properties.”

Officer report