Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 August 2010.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillors Peter Argyle, Brian Bedwell, Keith Lock and Royce Longton declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.)

The Chairman proposed that the order of business on the agenda be altered and it was agreed by the Committee that item 4(3) would be considered last on the agenda as it had attracted no public speaking. 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 10/01259/HOUSE in respect of a two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and double garage to replace single garage and car port.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Russell Poole and Ms Kate Cooper, applicant and agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Poole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He had lived in the village for 9 years and had always admired the house in question. 

·                    When originally viewed a year ago, the house was in a poor condition due to the previous extension.

·                    Planning Officers were consulted on the possibility of a further extension to update the property so that it could become his family home.  He was formally informed that permission would not automatically be granted and any planning application would be considered on its own merits.  However, a nearby property had been granted planning permission in similar circumstances.

·                    More recently a verbal indication had been given by Planning that the proposed scheme would be acceptable.  However, only a week ago he was advised that this was not the case and the matter would be determined at Committee.  This meant that an early return from holiday was necessary. 

Ms Cooper in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The original building was a charming house with attractive period detail.  It had very private grounds which were concealed from neighbouring properties. 

·                    A poor rear extension constructed in the 1990’s did not compliment the original building.  The interior space was also poorly planned. 

·                    The property was purchased with the aim of resurrecting its original charms and to transform this moderately sized dwelling with an improved extension. 

·                    The application needed to be evaluated on its own merits and even with the extension the property would only cover a small proportion of the overall plot. 

·                    The view from the highway would not be affected and the street scene would be protected. 

·                    There was already permission for a new garage and it was in fact planned to have a smaller garage than the existing one.

Members questioned when the pre application advice was originally received and Mr Poole advised that this was in February 2010, prior to the purchase of the property.  Mr Poole did recognise that there was a risk that the proposed extension would not be approved, but felt it was a risk worth taking.  The indication that the application would likely be approved was given verbally on 16 July 2010. 

Councillor Graham Pask, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                    He wanted to make the Committee aware of his concerns.

·                    He had some sympathy with the applicants and the proposal as the application, at an earlier stage, was indicated as likely to be recommended for approval.

·                    There were a number of considerations to take into account.  He supported limiting the size of extensions, but greater emphasis was generally given to the merits of the proposal and plot size rather than the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(1)

(Councillors Peter Argyle, Brian Bedwell, Keith Lock and Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they knew the agent.  As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 10/00727/FUL in respect of a change of use of a public house to a four bedroomed house.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Barry Morris, Parish Council representative, Mr David Alston, objector, and Mr Arthur Hedges and Mr M Postles, applicant and agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Morris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council objected to the loss of the only public house in North Street as it was a central point for the community.

·                    A lack of use was only true for the past two years as the public house had provided a good service in the past and could do so in the future as a free house.

·                    The previous tenants had little experience of running a public house and it operated as an expensive restaurant instead, which was not wanted by locals and trade was lost as a result. 

·                    It was purchased as a business premises and it had been fully marketed.

·                    The Parish Council requested that the application be rejected and the opportunity be allowed for the public house to continue to trade as a free house. 

Mr Alston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was speaking on behalf of the residents who objected to the scheme.

·                    He felt that greater consideration was needed based on the economic history of the public house, which showed trading as a free house and under the right ownership was a viable option.

·                    The independent report provided by Cookseys Chartered Surveyors was based on incorrectly low profit figures/estimates and the resulting trading valuation of £270k was, as a result, incorrect.  

·                    Further considerations were needed based on correct information and trading valuations. 

In response to Member questions Mr Alston advised that:

·                    The car parking area was part of the site.

·                    The public house was sold by the pub chain, Punch. 

Mr Hedges in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The pub had been failing for some time.  Numerous landlords and tenants had sought ways to make it viable but without success.  This included new signage.   

·                    It was based in a small hamlet of only 20 houses and there were seven pubs/restaurants elsewhere in Theale.

·                    It was poorly located on a narrow back road and the access road from Englefield was dangerous. 

·                    The car parking area was found to be insufficient when the pub had custom in the past and this was another factor in its failure.

·                    The independent surveyors report found the pub as being an unviable venture.  The valuation provided in this report was for the building and not the business. 

·                    There had been a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(2)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 10/00817/FUL in respect of the demolition of an existing house; erection of replacement 5 bedroom house; and re-organising landscape to provide formal route to the new house via existing access from the road.

Councillor Keith Lock, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                    He called this application to the Committee due to concerns regarding the proposed design. 

·                    There were also concerns regarding whether the second floor had been included in the increased volume stated in the report. 

·                    There was nothing in the application for stables or a garage and these could be applied for at a later stage, potentially increasing the overall size still further.

·                    However, he would be willing to accept Officers Recommendation to approve if a permitted development restriction could be conditioned for the remainder of the site.

David Pearson advised that this would be a reasonable addition, if it was considered to be a concern.  Further development, i.e. a garage and any roof modifications, would therefore require planning permission. 

Support was given to the application as it was felt to be a refreshing and innovative design. 

Councillor Keith Lock then proposed to accept Officers Recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Graham Pask.

Concerns were raised regarding the overall size and bulk of the proposed dwelling and it was felt that the inclusion of a garage could have changed Members’ views on this application. 

It was queried whether a garage would be required to be in proportion to the new house.  David Pearson advised that the current proposed increase was well within policy and the site was not in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  There was therefore scope for outbuildings, which would be considered on their own merits if and when necessary. 

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Time limit

1.         The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason:  To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Approved Plans

2.         The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with drawing title numbers 5449/PL07A, 5449/PL06A, 5449/PL09C and 5449/PL10B received on 26^th July 2010, drawing title number 5449/PL03 Rev A received on 7^th June 2010 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against National, Regional and Local Planning Policy.

Samples of materials

3.         No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(3)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 10/01220/HOUSE in respect of Section 73A – Variation of Condition 1 (time limit and plans of planning permission 09/01814/HOUSE to incorporate a taller single storey extension and Variation of Condition 3 (windows) to amend windows granted under planning permission 09/01814/HOUSE (conversion of two semi detached cottages to one detached dwelling.  Ground floor extensions to provide hall, utility, wc, family room and garden room.  Remove existing rear outbuilding and detached garage). 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Anne Stewart-Power, Mr Robert Bird and Ms Jo Pollock, objectors, and Ms Lesley Nelson, applicant, together with the architect for the build, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Stewart-Power in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council objected to the original application on the grounds of scale and design, although they did not lodge an objection for this variation.

·                    She lived next door to the completed house which was allowed to be built incorrectly by the applicant.

·                    Despite the hedges in place there was overlooking of her windows.

·                    The Planning report made reference to the increased roof height and although this might appear minimal, Ms Stewart-Power questioned whether it was necessary as the roof reflected a glare onto her property and it would take some time for the roof to weather. 

Mr Bird in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was on Mortimer Parish Council for some time and it was his experience that people often tried to get away with alterations of this kind.  This was not acceptable. 

Ms Pollock in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The work undertaken on the property had impacted upon her privacy.

·                    No notice had been taken by the applicant of the many objections raised when this application was originally approved.

·                    Ms Pollock questioned at what point minor alterations became significant. 

Ms Nelson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The property had been in her daughter in law’s family for some time and they had a wish to remain in the village and contribute to the community.

·                    Only four objections were received to the original application and the objections received on this occasion were partly duplicated.

·                    This application was in keeping with the number of different styles of home in the area which also had extensions.  This dwelling added to that character.

·                    The variation to the extension windows was an improvement to match the original windows.  The windows overlooking the neighbouring property had obscured glass, were screwed shut and had been sandblasted to protect the privacy of neighbours.

·                    The increased roof height had a minimal impact on surrounding properties.

·                    The roof and new brickwork would weather over time. 

In response to Member questions, the building’s architect made the following points:

·                    The roof angle was unchanged from the approved application.

·                    The plans circulated to the Committee were not the latest version he had provided to West Berkshire Council.  These showed that the revised roof pitch was lower  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(4)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 10/01169/FUL in respect of the erection of replacement dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Barry Dickens, Parish Council representative, and Mr Pitchford and Mr Darren Blackwell, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Dickens in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Officers Recommendation to grant planning permission was a closely balanced decision.

·                    The Parish Council objected to the application as, in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance on replacement dwellings in the countryside, it was disproportionate to the original dwelling.  Including the basement this was a 142% increase and without the basement taken into account it was still an increase of over 50%.  This was contrary to ENV23 and the Bucklebury Village Design Statement, and constituted overdevelopment.

·                    The proposal would be overly intrusive, particularly when considering the existing outbuildings.  It would not meet local and national guidelines.

·                    The design was inappropriate for the rural character of the area and this was again contrary to planning policy and the Village Design Statement.  It would not compliment existing properties, this included the proposal to use lime render.  It would also have a negative impact on the character, landscape and quality of the AONB in which it was located. 

·                    Insufficient attention had been given to a landscaping scheme. 

·                    The ridge height proposed was similar to the existing property. 

Mr Pitchford in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He had lived in the area for ten years and had purchased this property with the intention of turning it into a family home two years ago.

·                    The property had previously been unoccupied for some time and the surrounding land was in a run down state.  This had since been improved by Mr Pitchford and the land was used as an equestrian centre. 

·                    The house was next to a stream and subsidence had been an issue.  Parts of the house were therefore in a poor state of repair. 

·                    The proposal had been carefully put together since the purchase of the property, this included keeping the height at the same level as the existing dwelling.  This would keep it well obscured.  Approval of the application would update the property and make it something to be proud of. 

Mr Blackwell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He gave further detail on the processes undertaken to put together this proposal.  An application was produced in 2009, but was withdrawn as a result of the concerns that were raised. 

·                    Lengthy consultation was undertaken with West Berkshire Council and as a result policy requirements were adhered to, the proposal for a garage was removed and the outbuildings were to be retained.  These actions were felt to mitigate against the concerns raised previously and the application had been recommended for the Committee’s approval. 

·                    The floor space and volume increases had been significantly reduced from the 2009 application.  The basement would have no impact and should not be included as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(5)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

A date of 22 September 2010 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if required.