Agenda item

(Councillor David Allen, Jeff Beck and Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(5) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and in Councillor Allen’s and Beck’s cases, the Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Allen had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh, however, Councillors Beck and Tuck had not been present at the debate. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5) concerning Planning Application 14/01003/HOUSE in respect of a two storey and single storey rear extension at 2 Battery End, Newbury

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr John Stather and Mr David Hatfull, objectors, and Mr Adis Karahodza applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

Mr Barnet in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He observed that there was a mixture of opinions at the Committee.

·         Members had looked at the impact on no. 198 and no. 196. The proposal was for a considerable extension to create a large family home. Loss of light would be detrimental to no. 4 Battery End in the morning.

·         The Design Statement warns against back filling and houses in this area had been built on generous plots.

·         There might be difficulties during construction for vehicles delivering to the site, as there were already issues with car parking for parents taking their children to Falkland School.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked if he objected to the site. Mr Barnet reiterated that he was unclear as there was no strong reason to object and yet he felt there was more than met the eye.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing opined that the access to this development for site traffic would be arranged as it would for any other development. Mr Barnet explained that the corner became heavily congested at the beginning and end of the school day.

Mr Stather in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Neighbours had only latterly become aware of the proposed extension; on 20 May 2014. They were shocked that the design would mean a doubling in the size of the current house. This would dominate the bottom of the gardens of nos. 198 and 196 and impact on no. 4. As the shrubs were currently in leaf, the impact during the winter months should not be underestimated.

·         The extension was out of keeping with other sympathetic extensions along the road and could set a precedent. They would not object to something more reasonable in size.

·         The proximity to Falkland School would mean that construction traffic would create a major problem on the corner.

·         The design was out of keeping with area, there had been a lack on consultation with neighbouring properties and the size was overbearing.

Mr Hatfull in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He understood that this was a 1950s house that was in need of modernisation and a modest proposal would have been welcome, however the footprint of the proposed house was too large.

Mr Karahodza in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The development would be on the borderline of permitted development rights. The house had not been refurbished or extended since the 1970s and was therefore unacceptable as a family house. The three bedrooms were very small and the kitchen was non-existent.

·         He was endeavouring to create a four bedroom house with a study and kitchen/diner. He felt great care had been taken to minimise impact on neighbouring properties and had consulted with architects he worked with in London to create a family home. He felt he had reached a compromise between what was reasonable and what his family required.

·         He had called on some of the neighbours, but they had not been at home. He worked long hours and kept his weekends for his family time.

·         The work would be completed during the school holidays and so would not cause an issue with those using the school.

Councillor Anthony Edwards, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Howard Bairstow had called in this application as there were concerns about overdevelopment and a design out of keeping with the local houses.

·         The Newbury Design Statement advised that large houses with long gardens should be preserved in this area, however he did not feel that this development contravened this principle.

·         The view of the building would be different in summer and winter and this might have a bearing on the decision made by the Committee.

·         There were a mix of house types in the area and the design would not change the character of the road. It was regrettable that the neighbours were not consulted, however efforts were made.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked Officers to expand on the 50% rule, which she believed only applied in AONB and not urban areas, and permitted development rights. Derek Carnegie agreed that the 50% did not apply in this case. The Government now allowed an extension to be 8m long, single storey and 4m high without planning permission. This application was for two storeys and therefore planning permission was required. The Government guidance was to be less restrictive. He commented that the architect had been skilful in reducing the impact through the use of the cat-slide roof.

Councillor George Chandler commented that he could understand the objectors comments as the extension went into the garden a considerable way and asked why the hipped roof on the back of the property had not been carried over into the plan, as had the cat-slide roof. Derek explained that the cat-slide roof protected the nearest property.

Councillor Beck noted that during the site visit no. 4 had been sold. The previous owners had raised the objection to the development, however the new owners had not. The Chairman reminded the Committee that this was not a planning matter.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing appreciated the neighbours concerns and felt it was regrettable that they had not been consulted, however she felt the large garden could withstand this degree of extension. It was a large plot and the house was being brought up to modern day standards.

Councillor Beck proposed to accept Officer recommendations to approve planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor von Cesling.

The Chairman asked Officers if, due to the size of the extension, permitted development rights should be removed. Derek Carnegie opined that it would be inappropriate, in this case, as the garden was large and the applicant may wish to build a shed or children’s play area later.

Councillor von Cesling inquired if there was a case to condition construction traffic outside of school hours. Officers maintained that the construction was not large enough and would not take long enough for this to be needed.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote and the proposal to accept Officer recommendation and grant planning permission was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside to APPROVE planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

Time

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

Standard approved plans

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing number 14/08/02 proposed alterations and 14/08/03 proposed elevations received 6th May 2014.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

Materials to match

3.    The materials to be used in the external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture, and those materials shall remain at all times thereafter as the unaltered external finish to the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004)

Windows PD removal

4.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, of that Order shall be constructed at first floor level on the east and west elevations of the house hereby permitted, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).