Agenda item

Proposal:	Erection of third floor to provide four 1 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space
Location:	3 - 5 Porchester Road, Newbury
Applicant:	Jayborth Properties Limited
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to GRANT planning permission

 

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council (NTC), but would consider the application afresh.  As their interest was a personal and not an other registrable interest or disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/03469/FULD in respect of the erection of a third floor at 3-5 Porchester Road, Newbury to provide four 1 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

2.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Sonya Green, objector, Mr Nick Cobbold, agent and Councillor Anthony Pick, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.       Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations.  It had been brought to Committee as more than 10 objections had been received and officers were recommending approval.  Mr Butler noted that the building was not listed and the area was outside the local conservation area.  However the Conservation Officer had commented that he preferred the original symmetry of the first scheme, although the current scheme still remained acceptable in overall design terms. Michael Butler also drew the Committee’s attention to point 5.3 of the report, which referred to the inclusion of a pair of Juliette balconies.  The plans were not completely clear and the agent had since confirmed that there would be no Juliette balconies on the southern elevation; however the rear fire escapes would remain. 

4.       The Update Report recommended the inclusion of an additional condition for the inclusion of a sprinkler system on the top floor to control/prevent fire.  This would negate the need for the additional external fire escape to the top floor and so prevent overlooking.

5.       In conclusion, the report stated that the proposal was acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable.  Therefore, officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission subject to the additional conditions.

6.       Councillor Paul Bryant noted that Michael Butler had referred to the shadowing being as a result of the solstice, whereas it was in fact the winter equinox.  He went on to query whether the sprinkler system would apply to all three floors.  Michael Butler responded that it would only be the top floor, although Members could ask the applicant’s agent to include a sprinkler system on the other floors. Councillor Bryant further asked for confirmation that the fire escapes would be retained on the first and second floors, which Michael Butler affirmed.

7.       Councillor Adrian Edwards enquired where the large water tank for the sprinkler system would be located.  Michael Butler replied that this was a building regulation matter and if an external water tank was required, it would be included as a non-material amendment, negating the need for a new planning application.

8.       Councillor Anthony Pick asked if consideration had been given to the overlooking of gardens from the fourth floor.  Michael Butler confirmed that it had been considered and, as a result, the inclusion of a condition requiring obscured glazing had been contemplated, but as these were kitchen windows, the planners had not thought it was necessary.  However, Members might have a different view.

9.       Ms Sonya Green attempted to address the Committee but her voice was seriously impaired by a cold.  It was, therefore, proposed by Councillor Jeff Beck and seconded by Councillor Howard Bairstow that her companion should do so on her behalf.  As a result, Mr Seán Coughlan raised the following points:

·     The strongest objection concerned the asymmetric nature of the roof line, which had been offered by the Planning Officer as a ‘better’ scheme on the grounds that it would comply with the towers of 1 and 2 Porchester Road.  This was a strange comparison as these buildings predated 2-4 and 3-5 Porchester Road by a decade or so.

·     If 3-5 Porchester Road were similar to 4-6, then the attic floor was not load bearing and nor was it one level as the front of the house was some two feet lower than the rear with a brick ‘wall’ holding the higher section in place.  Therefore, the rear of number 5 would offer a much lower ceiling than the front of number 3.

·     Newbury Town Council had stated that the amended plans would harm the character of the area; the Conservation Officer preferred the original symmetry; the current site comprised attractive Victorian villas that added character to the area.  Despite all this, the design was claimed on balance to be acceptable with the asymmetry ‘fitting’ with the other buildings, although it was of a very different style.

·     If the planning application was granted, he requested that the parking area was completed before occupancy and space was given to the construction vehicles.

10.   Councillor Bairstow enquired whether a discussion had been held with the architect about the difference in height and Mr Coughlan confirmed that it had not.

11.   Mr Nick Cobbold in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     It was two years since they had first approached the Council for pre-application advice.

·     None of the current lease holders had objected to the scheme as they could see the benefits to their amenity.

·     The roof needed replacing so it was a logical time to carry out the work.

·     He had not previously had sight of the Council’s analysis in relation to loss of light, but it showed that the impact of the development would be minimal.

·     The Applicant had used the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance in order to assess the loss of light and considered that a 45º angle was acceptable.  He had looked at the distances and the angle from the middle of the windows to the top of the proposed developed was 40º, which was 5º less than the BRE guidance.

·     With regard to overlooking of neighbouring properties, there was already a degree of overlooking from the existing building so this would not have a great impact.

·     The original application had included a consistent roof line but had been changed following advice from the planners.  However design was subjective and there was no right or wrong answer.  There was a mixture of flats and buildings of differing heights in the area so the character of the neighbourhood had already changed over time.

·     Parking would be provided in accordance with the Council’s standards.

·     There were ten flats on the site already so this would not be a new development and the current impact had to be taken into account.

12.   Councillor Virginia von Celsing asked what the benefits would be to the current lease holders.  Mr Cobbold replied that 9 of the 10 units had been flooded recently and a new roof was required, so it would mean they would not have the financial burden of this.

13.   Councillor Bryant enquired how the sprinkler system would be fitted and if it would be viable.  Mr Cobbold responded that this had only been raised the previous day and so he had been unable to consider the detail.  However the options were to either have a water tank or connect each unit to the mains water supply, which might be the easier solution. 

14.   Councillor Bairstow pointed out that the drawings were incorrect as they showed three chimneys, but there should be two more on the rear elevation.  Mr Cobbold conceded that he might be correct.

15.   Councillor Bairstow further enquired about the difference between the two floors and how it changed the accommodation.  Mr Cobbold explained that one of the flats in the roof would have a pitched roof and the other a flat roof.

16.   Councillor Pick asked if all the top floor flats would be in the roof space and Mr Cobbold replied that only two of them would be.

17.   Councillor Clive Hooker noted that the renovation and alteration provided a good opportunity to tidy up the exterior of the building.  However he asked Michael Butler whether applying sprinklers to the first two floors would negate the need for the fire escapes.  Michael Butler responded that it would, but in his view, such a condition would be unreasonable. 

18.   Councillor Pick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     The property was a fine Victorian building.

·     Opposite were semi detached buildings which were identical except for an extension on the ground floor.

·     He differed from Michael Butler’s acceptance of the application, as he believed that the integrity of these buildings should be respected and he felt they made a substantial contribution to the area which would be impacted by the additional floor.

·     The overlooking from the fourth floor would have a greater impact than the current overlooking from the third floor.

·     The flats located in the roof would be cramped.

·     The building would contravene pages 48–49 of the Newbury Plan Statement.

·     The building was a heritage asset even though it was not listed as there were few buildings in Newbury of a similar nature.

19.   Councillor Bryant asked if he was objecting to the addition of the fourth floor or the asymmetry of the design to which Councillor Pick replied he objected to the addition of the fourth floor.

20.   Councillor von Celsing asked what the rationale was for the uneven roof.  Michael Butler replied that he had taken account of the villas on the other side of the road and the towers.  He had also discussed it with other officers and they had considered that the varied roofline would create more visual interest in a similar way to 1 Porchester Road.  If the Conservation Officer had objected to the design, they would have suggested it was revised but he had found it was acceptable.  Design was subjective and it was a highly sustainable area with massive demand for additional housing.  Therefore, although there would be some harm, it was not sufficient to refuse the application and he could not envisage a planning inspector dismissing the application if it went to appeal.

21.   The Committee debated the points raised and Councillor Bryant stated that he had a difficulty with the aesthetics of the design and the legality of the proposal.  He further added that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated committees should only accept planning applications for extensions that were of a high quality design and yet many that came to the committee were not.  He did not like the asymmetry of the design but there was little reason to object to the merits of the proposal as it was outside the conservation area and it would be approved by a planning inspector at appeal.  Therefore, with great reluctance, Councillor Bryant proposed acceptance of the planning application.  This was seconded by Councillor Beck who added that he thought the asymmetry helped the development to blend in with the neighbourhood and he considered it would be an improvement.

22.   Councillor Hooker invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Bryant, as seconded by Councillor Beck to accept Officers’ recommendation.  At the vote this was carried.

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

 

24.   Conditions

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 the advice in the DMPO of 2015   should it not be started within a reasonable time.

 

 2.  The development must be carried out in strict accord with the following plans as received on 10 January 2017 - plan number 2760-02b rev B, [proposed plans and proposed elevations] plus site plan and survey plan number 2760-01. Location plan received on 8 December 2016.

 

Reason: To clarify the permission in accord with the advice in the DMPO of 2015.

 

 3.  The development shall be completed as one whole phase.

 

Reason: To ensure there is no unacceptable visual imbalance in the north elevation of the proposed development which would otherwise be harmful to the street scene and setting of the adjacent conservation area, so being contrary to policy CS19 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy of 2006 to 2026.

 

4.   No new dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been provided in accordance with the approved plan(s).  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

5.   No new dwelling shall be occupied until the cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and this area shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

6.   No development shall take place until details of a contractors temporary parking and turning area to be provided and maintained concurrently with the development of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved parking and turning area shall be provided at the commencement of development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details until the development has been completed.  During this time, the approved parking and turning area shall be kept available for parking and used by employees, contractors, operatives and other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking and turning facilities during the construction period.  This condition is imposed in order to minimise the incidences of off-site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users, and long terms inconvenience to local residents. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

7.   The materials to be used in the development shall match those on the existing development to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This shall relate to the slate roof and the existing facing render.

 

Reason:  In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy of 2006 to 2026.

 

8.   The hours of work for all contractors (and sub-contractors) for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, be limited to; 7.30 am to 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays, 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays, and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

 

Reason:  In order to protect the amenities of surrounding residents in accordance with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

 

9.   Prior to the first occupation of the flats as permitted on the new top floor, a sprinkler system (or alternative mist system) shall be inserted in order to prevent fire.

 

Reason:  In the interests of public safety in accord with the NPPF.

 

The decision to grant  This decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy for the south east of England 2009 West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted 1998, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991-2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, supplementary planning guidance notes; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

    

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary.  If you require further information on this decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

 

INFORMATIVE:

 

1.     The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

 

2.     The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs.  For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.  This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met.  A fee is required for an application to discharge conditions.

 

 3   This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

 

 4   The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure.  A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice.  You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development.  Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges.  For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil