Agenda item

(Councillor Sheila Ellison declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she knew the owner of Kiln Cottage. As her interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00649/FULD in respect of the proposed demolition of an existing outbuilding and the construction of a new self build dwelling utilising an existing access with associated parking and landscaping.

As part of the Planning Officer, David Pearson’s, introduction to the item, he provided further information on self build homes. He explained that it was a requirement for local planning authorities to hold a register of people interested in developments of this type and who were seeking sites. The applicant was not listed on West Berkshire’s register, however this was not necessary in this case as the applicant had the available land. Mr Pearson added that local authorities were encouraged by Government to cater for self build homes. Mr Pearson stated that while this was a material consideration, it was not of particular significance.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Hunt/Ms Sara Dutfield, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Hunt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He explained that he and his wife had lived in Brimpton for many years and wished to continue living in the village.

·                    Approval of the proposal would allow them to live in a modest house to the rear of Kiln Cottage which would be largely shielded by planting and the Cottage itself. Only the roof would be partially visible from the road.

·                    Kiln Cottage was a Grade II listed building and was located within the Brimpton Conservation Area. However, this was also true of the Old Post Office which was located in a more prominent position on the roadside than Kiln Cottage. Kiln Cottage was also situated within a larger site which could accommodate the proposed self build dwelling.

·                    In terms of Kiln Cottage as a heritage asset, Mr Hunt explained that it was originally two dwellings that became a single dwelling in the 1950s. Extensions had since been added in the 1960s and 1970s (the most recent extension being a utility building). The existing Kiln Cottage had therefore undergone changes over the years from its original state.

·                    West Berkshire Council’s Conservation Officer had given the view that the harm caused by this proposed development would be ‘less than substantial’ and its impact therefore needed to be weighed against the benefits of the proposal. Mr Hunt listed these benefits as providing an addition to the housing stock in the form of a family home and additional Council Tax to the Council. It would enable local Brimpton people, namely himself and his wife, to continue to live in the village, and maintain long term friendships. Mr Hunt added that local contractors would be employed to undertake works.

·                    Mr Hunt disagreed with the point made by the Conservation Officer that Kiln Cottage was surrounded by open countryside. This had not been the case for some time, certainly not in the time since it had become listed.

·                    The proposal was supported by neighbours and the Parish Council. Mr Hunt felt that this was a reasonable application and hoped it would be approved.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted from the update report that drawing numbers 101A and 102A had been replaced by 101B and 102B and he queried when these amended drawings had been submitted. Ms Dutfield confirmed that this was at the beginning of week commencing 15 May 2017.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe queried the location of the utility room extension. Mr Hunt confirmed this to be at the northern end of Kiln Cottage. Councillor Metcalfe noted that this would be the closest section to the proposed self build.

Councillor Ellison queried whether the existing outbuilding was used for business purposes. Mr Hunt advised that this was not the case.

Councillor Dominic Boeck addressed the Committee as Ward Member and made the following points:

·           Kiln Cottage was located on the northern edge of the Conservation Area. It had two vistas, one from the road near to where the plot narrowed and one from neighbours. However, it could only be clearly seen from the road and he added that passing pedestrians were rare. This was a discreet site.

·           He reiterated the point that the application was supported by neighbours and the Parish Council.

·           Councillor Boeck gave the view that Brimpton was in need of some development to help it continue as a sustainable community. The local shop had recently closed and the primary school had struggled in recent years in terms of pupil numbers.

·           The erection of an additional dwelling would be a good use of the available space on the Kiln Cottage plot and would have little impact on the Conservation Area.

Councillor Alan Macro queried whether the Parish Council was in favour of the application. Councillor Boeck clarified that they had raised no objections.

Councillor Pamela Bale sought to understand the full extent of the Conservation Area. Councillor Boeck explained that this did not cover the entirety of Brimpton. He reiterated that Kiln Cottage was located on the northern edge of the Conservation Area, covering the area which bordered The Willows. The Conservation Area then moved in an easterly direction. He could not confirm when it was designated as a Conservation Area. Councillor Emma Webster, after checking West Berkshire Council’s website, confirmed that the Conservation Area was designated as such in 1971.

Councillor Webster asked Councillor Boeck whether it was his experience that Brimpton residents would actively voice any concerns they had over a planning application and, if so, whether the fact that only five residents had made representations should be considered significant, particularly when comments were all supportive. Councillor Boeck agreed that this small response from residents and the absence of any objections should be considered significant based on the active participation of residents on local issues.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the references made in the report to the use of close board fencing to subdivide the garden space which was highlighted as a concern by the Conservation Officer. Specifically that this would be detrimental to the listed building’s significance and that the harm identified from this boundary treatment could not be overcome by any mitigation measures due to its level of significance. Councillor Bridgman recalled discussion at the site visit of planting a hedge rather than using close board fencing and he queried whether this would be felt to lessen the harm. Mr Pearson repeated the view given by the Conservation Officer in the report that any adjustments to the boundary treatment would not do enough to overcome the harm identified.

Councillor Bridgman then referred to the point made by the Conservation Officer that in their view the harm caused by the development would be ‘less than substantial’ as set out in paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He noted that this level of harm to the heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal and he sought guidance on what were considered as public benefits.

Mr Pearson explained that this was governed by case law. He stated that the personal circumstances of an applicant were rarely a material planning consideration and he did not feel this was the case with this application, although the points made by the applicant were understood. He also made the point that the level of support for or objection to an application was not material to the decision taken. Economic/wider benefits to the village were however matters that could be taken into account.

Continuing with the matter of public benefit, Councillor Webster felt there was a need to consider how much weight should be given to optimising the viable use of the asset and ensuring its long term conservation, and whether this could be achieved as part of this application. Kiln Cottage would need works to be undertaken to maintain it and ensure it continued to be kept in a liveable condition. Mr Pearson commented that this application could be considered as an enabler to the maintenance and continued occupation of Kiln Cottage, but this was separate to the issue of the impact on the listed building and the Conservation Area from the proposal.

Mr Pearson continued by explaining that planning applications were received from owners of listed buildings, i.e. adjustments for elderly residents, and each case was judged on its own merits, with the view of the Conservation Officer to be taken into account.

Councillor Tony Linden queried whether the application would be referenced up to the District Planning Committee if permission was granted contrary to the Officer recommendation. Mr Pearson commented that while Officers were giving a clear recommendation for refusal that was in no way marginal, approval of the application would not have any strategic implications and was not considered to be sufficiently significant, therefore it would not be referenced to the District Planning Committee if it was approved.

Councillor Alan Macro queried whether development in a conservation area was required to enhance the character and appearance of the area. Mr Pearson advised that it should look to conserve the area and added that the Planning Inspectorate would want to ensure that conservation areas were conserved rather than enhanced from development.

Councillor Webster queried whether local authorities had a target to achieve for self build homes. Mr Pearson explained that this was an aspiration for local authorities to be mindful of rather than an actual target.

Councillor Quentin Webb voiced his concerns at the impact this proposal would have on the listed building and the Conservation Area. He concurred with the view of the Conservation Officer that approval of the application would have a detrimental impact. Councillor Webb therefore supported Officers’ recommendation.

Councillor Ellison queried whether the outbuilding proposed for demolition had been granted planning permission. She added that a key consideration was to consider the impact of the proposed new dwelling in comparison with the current outbuilding.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe added his concerns regarding the proposal. As seen at the site visit, the existing plot had a sizeable garden area, however it was proposed that this area would be split between Kiln Cottage and the proposed self build dwelling. He was however aware of other sites in other areas of the district where buildings had been erected near to listed buildings.

Councillor Metcalfe also commented on the fact that the additions made to Kiln Cottage detracted from the view that it was in its originally built state.

Councillor Metcalfe added that the height of the proposed dwelling was a primary concern as this would have a negative impact on Kiln Cottage.

Councillor Macro pointed out that the existing outbuilding was single storey and therefore had a far lesser impact on Kiln Cottage than the proposed larger dwelling would have. Councillor Macro proposed to accept Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report, subject to the removal of the reference to close board fencing and the addition of relevant planning policy references. This was seconded by Councillor Webb.

Councillor Webster referred to the ridge height of the proposed dwelling, she felt this was respectful of the existing dwelling heights in the local area and the impact on the conservation area had to be considered alongside the benefits that would be achieved. Councillor Webster felt this was an on balance decision to take with valid points to consider from both sides.

Councillor Law referred to the discussion held at the site visit when the position of the current building and the proposed dwelling was considered as was the impact it would have. Consideration of this impact was key in determining this application.

Mr Pearson commented that there was no record of planning permission being granted for the existing outbuilding. He reiterated that the issues raised by the Conservation Officer had been clear; the impact of the new larger dwelling and the proposed sub-division of the plot which was in its original, historic state.

Mr Pearson also made reference to a nearby site where the Planning Inspector had raised concerns regarding the impact on the Conservation Area. Approval of this planning application could result in further similar applications in the village.

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

1.    The site forms part of the setting of a Grade II listed building and is within the Brimpton Conservation Area it is currently a large garden servicing Kiln Cottage where there is a sense of open space to the rear of the site.  This open space contributes to the special quality of the building’s setting.  The erection of a dwelling within this space, and the associated subdivision of the garden, would materially diminish that experience, to the detriment of the listed building’s significance. In views from the road, the new dwelling would become a dominant feature within the setting of this historic cottage, harming the spacious and verdant character of the area surrounding Kiln Cottage, further diminishing the building’s significance.  The application site not only forms an important element in the setting of Kiln Cottage but, for the same reason, it makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  By causing harm to the setting of the listed building the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

For the above reason it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), which seek to protect the setting of heritage assets and the character and appearance of Conservation Areas

2.    At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system and emphasises that a presumption in favour of sustainable development should be the basis for every plan, and every decision. The proposal makes no significant contribution to the wider economic dimensions of sustainable development as there would only be a minor benefit in terms of additional employment during the construction period and the addition of a new dwelling to the housing stock. With regard to the environmental role of fundamentally contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment it is considered that the proposal fails to respect and preserve the existing natural and built environment and does not protect and enhance the prevailing pattern of development in the local area and the site specifically and the character and appearance of the site itself and in particular it has an unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building and the character and appearance of a conservation area. The proposal makes no significant contribution to the wider social dimension of sustainable development due to the significant visual impact it will cause which will damage the character and appearance of the local area in particular the conservation area in which the site lies and also to the setting of the listed building to the detriment of their enjoyment by local residents.

For the above reason, it is considered that the proposed development is not sustainable development as set out in the NPPF and does not conform to the following Policies: ADPP1, CS14 and CS19.