Agenda item

(No declarations were received.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant vacated the Chair and Councillor Clive Hooker resumed his place as Chairman.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 17/00360/HOUSE in respect of a loft conversion, including rear skylights and change of use of bedroom to office in Love Lane, Donnington, Newbury.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alex Simeunovic, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie introduced the report to 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. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Mr Simeunovic in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was the owner of the property and the application before the committee was a continuation of a previous application he had submitted. That application was for a dormer window in the loft and had been declined.

·         The new application now included skylights instead of a dormer, but 15 Love Lane had fitted a dormer as part of their loft conversion.

·         The property was intended for use as a family home but they might wish to rent out two of the bedrooms. The application for a license as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) had been submitted for that reason.

5.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked why the applicant wished to covert the loft space. Mr Simeunovic replied that there was a good space in the loft which was currently being wasted and he would like to use it. There would be no increase to the number of bedrooms as one of the rooms would now be used as an office.

6.    Councillor Paul Bryant, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Parish Council did not object to the loft conversion but did have concerns that three spaces would not be a sufficient amount of car parking for a property which could have a large number of occupants.

·         Love Lane was a busy road which was a bus route, had schools along the road and chicanes.

·         The site was overdeveloped.

·         A condition applied to a previous application on the site precluded new openings.

·         A previous application for change of use to a HMO was refused because the property lacked sufficient car parking.

·         It was hard to imagine the property as a family home as it would have seven bedrooms. Sitting rooms could also be used as bedrooms.

·         The development would cause Love Lane to become a ‘little Slough’.

·         It would be a mistake to permit further extension of the property and would not be an example of good planning.

7.    Councillor Adrian Edwards expressed the view that he could understand the financial benefit to the applicant to rent out rooms and asked whether the Highways Authority would require additional parking should this be the case. Paul Goddard advised that he had difficulty knowing what was actually being assessed here, but must rely on the planning officers to explain the application. If the application was for a family home, three spaces would meet the Council’s adopted parking standards for a property with four or more bedrooms. If the property were to accommodate multiple households the parking would not be sufficient. Derek Carnegie advised that the applicant had stated the property would be used as a family home and speculation regarding potential use of the property as a HMO was not part of the application before the Committee.

8.    Councillor Pick asked whether the proposal could constitute overdevelopment of the site. Derek Carnegie advised that the existing outbuilding in the garden and the loft conversion were within permitted development.

9.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked whether the Council had sufficient resources to check whether the property was used as an HMO. Derek Carnegie advised that any planning enforcement action was a balance between the cost, damage to community and likelihood of success. Councillor Hilary Cole commented that should the property be used as an HMO it would fall within the remit of Environmental Health.

10.Councillor Dennis Benneyworth enquired whether there was sufficient space on site to accommodate three parked cars. Paul Goddard advised that following the site visit he was concerned that the stepped area at the front of the property might restrict car parking space, but a condition to provide the three spaces was subject with a previous consent within the site. If the three spaces were not provided then enforcement could take place.

11.Councillor Hilary Cole proposed acceptance of officer’s recommendations to approve planning permission. She expressed the view that the Committee should not assume that even if the property did become a HMO that every resident would have a car. The site was in a sustainable location on a bus route and there was a car club in Newbury. Councillor Jeff Beck seconded that proposal.

12.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote of the proposal of Councillor Hilary Cole as seconded by Councillor Beck. At the vote the motion was carried with three members abstaining. Councillor Adrian Edwards asked that his abstention be recorded.

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

Conditions

1.             Full planning permission time limit

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).

2. Standard approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings

-          Drawing title “Block Plan & Site Location Plan”. Drawing number 3LL-001. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed Section through house”. Drawing number 3LL-007. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed Roof Plan”. Drawing number 3LL-006. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed Rear Elevation”. Drawing number 33LL-0010. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed Flank Elevation”. Drawing number 3LL-009. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing and & Proposed Loft Plan”. Drawing number 3LL-005. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017

-          Drawing title “Parking Plan”. Drawing title “. Drawing number 3LL-002. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed First Floor”. Drawing number 3LL-004. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

-          Drawing title “Existing & Proposed Ground Floor”. Drawing number 3LL-003. Date stamped 23^rd February 2017.

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

3. Materials to match

The materials of the proposed roof lights of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and design as closely as possible. These 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 Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

4. Obscure glazing before use

The roof light with in the east elevation of the roof shall be fitted with obscure glassbefore the loft conversion hereby permitted is occupied.  The obscure glazing shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

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).

5. Use class restriction

The property shall be used solely as a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3).  Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and/or the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any order(s) revoking, re-enacting or modifying those Orders with or without modification), the property shall not be used for any other use purpose that would normally be permitted by those Orders, including use as a house of multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

Reason:   The property has insufficient parking provision were the enlarged habitation space to be converted to a HMO.  An otherwise permitted change of use to C4 would therefore be unacceptable.  This condition is applied in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD (2015).