Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application Nos. 16/01675/HOUSE and 16/01676/LBC2 in respect of the erection of a two storey extension and single storey glazed link.

The Planning Officer, Derek Carnegie, confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 31^st August 2016.

The site was located within Upper Lambourn, outside of any defined settlement boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application site fell within the open countryside as identified within Area Delivery Plan Policy 1 (ADPP1) of the Core Strategy where ‘only appropriate limited development in the countryside will be allowed, focussed on addressing identified needs and maintaining a strong rural economy’. Policy ENV.24 of the Local Plan Saved Policies allowed for the extension of houses in the countryside in principle subject to a range of criteria, primarily relating to design, harm to the character of the area and whether it would be disproportionate to the original dwelling.

Policy C6 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) was proposed to replace saved policy ENV.24. This policy also allowed for the extensions of houses in the countryside. There was a presumption in favour of proposals for the extension of existing permanent dwellings and would be permitted subject to scale in relation to the original dwelling, design and use of materials, and harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. Of most relevance to this application was that it should have no adverse impact on the setting, the space occupied within the plot boundary, on local rural character, the historic interest of the building and its setting within the wider landscape.

It was considered that the impact of the proposed extension when taken with the existing building would result in a substantial dwelling on this plot, which would be inappropriate in this location. Whilst the plot size was relatively large, the proposed dwelling would dominate the residential curtilage. The original rear garden area would be lost to built development, with the front of the dwelling re-sited to the extension. The original listed farmhouse/farm yard layout would no longer be visible, which was considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of this Grade II Listed Building.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty had a high status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, as set out in paragraph 115 of the NPPF. It was considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed extension, in conjunction with the existing dwelling and surrounding buildings on the site would introduce a significant amount of built form into this open, rural landscape which would have a detrimental impact in this location. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with relevant criteria of saved policy ENV24 or emerging policy C6 in this regard.

With regard to proportion and increases in size of extensions proposed in the countryside, the Replacement Dwellings and Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside SPG outlined the factors to consider (including floor space calculations based on the original dwelling as first constructed or as they existed in 1948 if built before this date). It stated that an increase in floor space of less than 50% would likely be acceptable, with anything over 100% normally to be unacceptable. Between 50% and 100% depended on the site characteristics, scale and massing of the proposal. The existing dwelling currently consisted of the original farm cottage, which had been significantly extended over time, with a substantial two storey extension, followed by a further significant single storey modern extension. The proposal would add a further two storey extension to replicate the existing two storey dwelling. Due to the amount of changes over time, the actual floorspace of the original dwelling was difficult to calculate. If however the single storey rear extension was removed and the two storey original building and proposed extensions were simply compared, this would represent a 97% increase. Historical maps showed that the dwelling would have been significantly smaller and therefore the actual increase in floorspace over the original dwelling would be in excess of 100%.

It was noted that the applicants had questioned the use of the ‘disproportionate calculations’, which was one of the criteria of Policy ENV24. Emerging policy only required the proposal to be subservient to the host dwelling. It was clear from the calculations that the proposed would be marginally subservient to the host property in terms of a 97% increase, but visually this would not be apparent, particularly when it was added to the proposed single storey extension and the existing modern elements of the property. These elements combined would result in a form of development which would be three times the depth of the original building and not a form which could be considered to be either proportionate or subservient.

The dwelling was a Grade II Listed building and an application for Listed Building Consent was also to be determined by the Committee. In the consultation response from Historic England, the dwelling was described as a relatively rare Cottage Orné, where the proposed extension, on the grounds of overdevelopment, would lead to a high degree of harm to the significance of the listed building. The proposed extension was considered to be fundamentally at odds with the architectural character of the original modest cottage and the significance of the listed building would be lost. The Conservation Officer echoed these views, also adding that it was the Council’s duty to preserve buildings and settings of architectural interest. The property’s special interest was derived from its modest, but decorated appearance, the building techniques used in its construction and the detailing on the facade. Whilst it had been extended, this had been to the rear of the building and had been subservient and of the same architectural language. The proposed design replicated the existing cottage in a bookend effect, which was clearly not subservient to the main cottage. In 100 years time it would be difficult to determine the original house, which was of key significance. The original dwelling would no longer house the entrance to the dwelling and the original siting and layout would be lost. Whilst it was acknowledged that previous extensions had undermined some of the significance of the heritage asset, this was not sufficient reason to grant consent. The building still remained a valuable heritage asset which in the opinion of Historic England warranted further research.

The proposals were considered to result in significant harm to the heritage asset. In these instances the NPPF (paragraph 132), was clear that “Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.” It went on to state that “where there is no public benefit to outweigh the harm, these applications should be refused”. It was considered that the existing dwelling had sufficient floorspace to enable it to operate as a viable dwelling. Therefore the proposed extension of the dwelling would provide only private benefit and no public benefit contrary to advice. Whilst the applicants wished to remodel the space to suit family requirements, this did not represent sufficient justification to outweigh the harm to the valuable heritage asset. This was further reinforced by the views of the Conservation Officer and that of Historic England, who as specialist heritage professionals, set out that the application should be refused as contrary to policy CS19, the NPPF and the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Conservation Officer had expressed a willingness to discuss a more suitable single storey scheme with the applicant/agent that could be acceptable on an exceptional basis, but this had not been taken forward and the Officer view was that there were no exceptional circumstances on which to approve this application.

Members at the Western Area Planning Committee in the main considered that the proposed extension was of a design which was appropriate and the original modest form of the cottage did not meet modern requirements and therefore the proposed extension, given that the original cottage had already been extended, was acceptable. They felt this benefit would outweigh the harm and justify the departure from national and local planning policy. The Western Area Planning Committee therefore resolved to grant conditional planning permission, but agreed that the matter should be referred to the District Planning Committee to consider policy implications and, if permission was granted, conditions of approval. Officers also determined that the issues involved should be considered by the District Planning Committee due to the significant conflict with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This was in addition to conflicting with planning policy that would undermine the development plan and the forthcoming HSA DPD.

In response to queries from Members, the Planning Officer advised that the Grade II listed building consisted of the original cottage and the glazed link by association. The Planning Officer also confirmed that the current property contained two first floor bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mark Preston and Mr Mark Pettitt, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Preston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He explained that the purpose of this application was to enable himself, his wife and their two young children to live within a single building. He was not a developer seeking to make a profit.

·                     The Grade II listed property was very small and could not accommodate the four bedrooms sought. This was why a planning application for an extension had been submitted. Approval of this would enable his children’s bedrooms to be on the first floor as were the existing bedrooms.

·                     Mr Preston had already invested much in improving this property.

Mr Pettitt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He explained that this application was a much improved version of the original application withdrawn in May 2016. It was little different from the scheme that the Conservation Officer had felt would be acceptable.

·                     Listed buildings needed to evolve over time, and in the case of this property, become a family home. To achieve this it was sensible for the additional bedrooms to be located on the first floor.

·                     The extension would not compete visually with the main house as it would be some 10.5 metres distant and would not therefore alter the setting of the main house.

·                     The glazed link would provide a sensitive connection between the original property and the new.

·                     The proposal was compliant with Policy C6 of the HSA DPD.

·                     The use of appropriate materials was a condition of approval and the extension would not be a harmful addition to the existing property.

Councillor Anthony Pick noted that if approved, the extension would ‘stick out’ from the original property when viewed from the south. The extension would also intrude on the existing garden space and Councillor Pick queried landscaping plans. Mr Preston was of the view that it would be necessary to stand at some distance from the property from the south in order to observe the extension ‘sticking out’. He agreed with the importance of maintaining the building’s current facade. In terms of landscaping, Mr Preston advised that extensive landscaping work had already been undertaken and this would be minimally added to.

Councillor Hilary Cole queried the purpose of the numerous outbuildings on the site. Mr Preston explained that, in time, it was his hope that these would be used as stables. One of the outbuildings was also used as a utilities room, washing machine etc, as the listed property could not accommodate all modern day appliances. The l-shaped building/annex was used as accommodation by Mr Preston’s elder children when they visited.

Councillor Cole asked Mr Preston whether as a parent he would be happy with the distance that would exist between his bedroom and that of his young children if this application was approved. Mr Preston explained that he would be content if their bedroom was on the same floor.

Councillor Gordon Lundie, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                  He was also speaking on behalf of his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Graham Jones, and they were both in support of this planning application.

·                  The original cottage was modest in size. It was very attractive and sat well within the landscape. He agreed it was important to protect and preserve the existing property.

·                  Historic England felt that the proposed extension would result in a high degree of harm to and loss of the significance of the modest listed building and development of listed buildings needed significant justification before they could be accepted. Councillor Lundie questioned the harm that would be caused to this listed property. He pointed out that significant additions had been made to the original modest dwelling. While this proposal would constitute a further addition at the far end of the existing property, Councillor Lundie again questioned the level of harm this would cause.

·                  He added that the additions made had been sympathetically done and this extension would be erected in a similar style. It would enhance the site.

·                  The view of the property from the road would not be altered, this would remain of the cottage.

·                  The Western Area Planning Committee had felt that the benefits of this proposed development would outweigh any harm. The consideration for Members was the level of impact of this proposed extension on the listed building. Councillor Lundie did not feel this would be significantly harmed.

Councillor Alan Law noted the points of the Ward Member. He pointed out that the Committee needed to determine whether or not to grant planning permission and listed building consent. In terms of the listed building consent, the property had already been extended and Councillor Law shared the view that this proposal would not cause additional harm to the listed building. Policy requirements for extensions of properties in the countryside were unchanged, with consideration needing to be given to whether or not development would be in proportion with the existing dwelling. The overall increase to the property if the extension was approved, in comparison to the original dwelling, was extensive.

Councillor Richard Crumly advised that he had listened carefully to the points made and supported the clear Officer view that planning permission should be refused as it was important that the Council stuck with its own planning rules. The comments of Historic England had to be taken into account, with an extension nearly as large as the original dwelling harmful. Only a more subservient extension could be considered.

Mr Carnegie stated that Planning Officers had a duty to consider the view of a Planning Inspector at an appeal. It was likely that a Planning Inspector on noting the objections of Historic England would reach the same conclusion of Officers, i.e. that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment on this site and cause harm. It was the Council’s duty to protect assets in the countryside.

Councillor Crumly then proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to refuse both planning permission and listed building consent. This was seconded by Councillor Alan Macro.

Councillor Garth Simpson referred to the point made earlier that the actual increase in floorspace over the original dwelling would be in excess of 100%. He queried what was considered as the original. Councillor Cole clarified that any development post 1948 was considered as additional. Mr Carnegie confirmed that the 100% increase covered development since 1948. Any additions prior to 1948 were considered as part of the original dwelling.

Councillor Macro repeated the view of Historic England that this development would constitute a high degree of harm and the loss of this heritage asset would be of concern. The NPPF also stated that where there was no public benefit to outweigh the harm, applications should be refused. Councillor Macro noted no benefit from this application other than to the owner of the property. As stated by the Planning Officer, the Conservation Officer had suggested that a single storey extension would be suitable, but this had not been taken forward.

Councillor Clive Hooker felt that additions post 1948 were concerning and the damage had been done to the original property over the course of many years. These had not been subservient, particularly the most recent modern extension. This created an issue when determining this application. However, Councillor Hooker felt the proposed extension was too large and would have a detrimental impact.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe commented that he liked the proposed design of the extension and felt that it would provide a balanced affect on the existing dwelling. The south facade would not be compromised. Councillor Metcalfe felt that the extended property would be appropriate to its situation and the vast garden space would remain. It was however questionable whether the overall increase in size would be too great when compared against the original listed building.

Councillor Metcalfe would not be supportive of a single storey extension as this would not achieve the balance of a two storey extension. Councillor Metcalfe advised that he would abstain from the vote on this application.

Councillor Paul Bryant felt that a single storey extension would be acceptable. The question of whether additions already made and proposed to be made to the original property were acceptable was a matter of opinion. The increase referred to in excess of 100%, compared to the original dwelling, was unusual in this instance, as much of the additions were not directly attached to the main building. Councillor Bryant stated that this proposed extension needed to be considered on its own merits as in each case.

Councillor Cole made reference to the HSA DPD, specifically Policy C6 – extension of existing dwellings within the countryside and asked Members to note that this stated that the relationship with the existing dwelling was key, and the scale, height and massing of an alteration or extension should appear subservient to the existing dwelling. Did this proposal achieve that? This included the cumulative impact of development. Cumulative impact was mentioned a number of times within housing in the countryside policies. These were key factors needing consideration.

Councillor Cole stated that as the Council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning she would be supporting the Officers’ recommendation to refuse in line with planning policy. She understood the applicant’s reasoning for the application to better accommodate his growing family, but this was not a planning consideration. The Committee’s decision had to be based on the scale, height and massing that would be created if this application was approved, the cumulative impact alongside previous development on the site and whether it would be subservient to the existing dwelling. In Councillor Cole’s view it would not be subservient. 

Mr Carnegie reiterated that the Council had a duty to protect heritage assets. He also made the point that if this application was refused it could go to an appeal where it would receive an independent determination.

The proposal to accept Officers’ recommendation to refuse both planning permission and listed building consent was then put to separate votes.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal fails to preserve the building, its setting, or its features of special architectural or historic interest. The proposal would result in harm to this Grade II listed building which would not be outweighed by any public benefits arising from the proposed works. The proposal therefore conflicts with the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and Policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

2.    The proposed extension would be disproportionate in size and scale and would not be visually subservient to the existing dwelling. The cumulative impact of development would be materially greater and more harmful than that of the modest scale and proportion of the listed dwelling and would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character of the surroundings including the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such the application fails to comply with the aims of the NPPF, Policy ENV24 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, Policy ADPP1 and ADPP5 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026), Policies C3, and C6 of the draft West Berkshire Council Proposed Submission Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (November 2015).

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse listed building consent.