Agenda item

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 than 4m. 

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

·                    The original application attracted eight objections.

·                    It had been discovered that the extension was not built in accordance with the plans, which was why it had been called to Committee. 

David Pearson suggested deferring the item as there was uncertainty over which were the most up to date plans.  Deferral was proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly.

RESOLVED that the item would be deferred to the next Eastern Area Planning Committee to ensure that the correct plans were being considered.