Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Howard Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council but not its Planning and Highways Committee. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Howard Bairstow, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/01808/OUTD in respect of an outline application for the erection of a dwelling with integral garage.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  The application had been brought to Committee as it had received in excess of 10 objections.  The Update Sheet included an additional condition that recommended the removal of permitted development rights for the construction of dormer windows in the roof of the dwelling.  In conclusion the reported detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.  Officers consequently recommended that the Committee grant outline planning permission.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Adrian Edwards, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.     Councillor Edwards in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The current property was a substantial house with a generous amount of garden, typical of the other houses in Normay Rise.

·         The garden was adjacent to Willowmead Close, which had houses and gardens of a similar size.

·         The development would overlook the existing house at 5 Normay Rise as it would be built on a significant slope.

·         Newbury Town Council’s Town Design Statement published in 2005 was referred to in the planning officer’s report.  It stated that one of the principles of the Statement was to conserve the garden suburb character of the area and this application did not meet this principle.

·         However the planning officer did not quote the reference to Normay Rise on Page 60 of the Statement or sections 5.1 and 5.4 on Page 63 which stated that the ‘garden suburbs’ enhanced the gateway into Newbury and should be preserved.

·         The development would compromise the street scene by reducing the garden size making it cramped.

·         It was overdevelopment and would create a precedent for other residents to build in their gardens.

·         He asked the Committee to refuse the outline application.

5.     Councillor Paul Bryant sought clarification of the need for the additional condition in the Update Report, related to removal of the permitted development rights for the construction of dormer windows.  Matthew Shepherd advised that it was included to protect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and it would not be possible to include this condition when the reserved matters application was received.

6.     Councillor Pick noted that the total area of the site was 432 square metres and he asked what size the amenity spaces would be for the existing and new dwellings.  Matthew Shepherd replied that he was not currently in possession of this detail, as it would not be available until the reserved matters were received.

7.     Councillor Pick further queried the comment from the Tree Officer in the fourth paragraph on Page 25, which implied that the Officer had a concern with the application.  Matthew Shepherd responded that the Tree Officer had recommended the inclusion of a condition covering this and consequently did not have any objections to the application.

8.     At the request of the Chairman, Paul Goddard provided a comment from a highways perspective.  He advised that there had been concerns from residents about the closeness of the new development to the junction at Normay Rise.  However, as access would be onto a lightly trafficked cul-de-sac, he did not have any objections to the development and he was satisfied that parking for three vehicles could be accommodated when the reserved matters were received.

9.     Councillor Garth Simpson stated that although he had been unable to attend the site visit last week, he had visited it subsequently.  He had originally been in agreement with the proposal as the width of the garden was similar to that at 2 Normay Rise.  However, he had since changed his mind due to the slope and the assumption that the building line should correspond with the other dwellings, which would result in the amenity space at the back of the property being small.  In addition, the argument given by Councillor Edwards that this development would set a precedent was a powerful one and he did not wish to see the garden suburb design being degraded.

10.  Councillor Clive Hooker interjected that the size of the amenity space had been discussed at the site meeting and it appeared to be sufficient.

11.  Derek Carnegie added that the applicant would be aware that the land had to be used effectively and would ensure there was sufficient amenity space, even if it resulted in reducing the size of the dwelling.  In addition, the Planning Inspector was not likely to agree that a dwelling could not fit on the site.   He also noted that despite Councillor Edwards’ reference to the Newbury Town Design Statement, Newbury Town Council had not objected to the application.

12.  Councillor Bryant expressed his dislike of this sort of development, which removed the setting and the environment from the donor property.  However he accepted Derek Carnegie’s point that the Planning Inspector was likely to grant permission at appeal.

13.  Councillor Beck remarked that a considerable amount of effort had been put into the development of the Newbury Town Design Statement, which had been designed to preserve Newbury for future residents.  He also had a concern about the Tree Officer’s comments and taking account of the considerable slope and the blatant garden grabbing, he proposed that planning permission was refused.  His reasons for this were that the development would destroy the integrity of the surrounding estate, the occupiers of the donor dwelling would be overlooked, no comments had been received from the Drainage Officer and a previous application at 12 Normay Rise had been refused.

14.  Councillor Hooker commented that the presumption was to approve the application as it was within the settlement boundary, the amenity space was acceptable and so was the car parking and turning.  Therefore, a refusal was likely to be overturned at appeal.

15.  Councillor Edwards advised that an objection had not been received from Newbury Town Council because the proposed objection did not receive a seconder.

16.  Councillor Pick reiterated he was not satisfied that sufficient amenity space would be available. 

17.  Derek Carnegie again stressed that the size of the dwelling would have to be reduced to ensure there was sufficient amenity space or the later application would be refused.

18.  Councillor Pick noted that the appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a similar development at 12 Normay Rise had not been overturned at appeal.

19.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth reflected that although he did not like the proposed development, he had taken note of the officers’ comments in relation to the Planning Inspector.

20.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Edwards and at the vote the motion was carried by 5 votes to 4.    

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

1.         Character of the Area

The proposal is to subdivide an existing garden area and erect a new dwelling at the land adjacent to 5 Normay Rise. The development would, by virtue of form, scale and siting, result in cramped overdevelopment of the plot which fails to respect the established residential character and visual and spatial characteristics of the locality. The development would materially harm the street scene.  Furthermore the proposed rear garden areas for the existing and new dwellings do not meet current recommended standards set out in the Quality Design SPD. These small gardens are not in character with the surrounding area which emphasises that the dwelling represents overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policies ADPP1 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, advice contained in West Berkshire Council Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Quality Design: Part 2 Residential Development; advice contained within the NPPF and guidance set out in the Newbury Town Design Statement (2005).

2.         Private Amenity Space

The private amenity space for the proposed dwelling would fall short of the amount of space which future occupiers might reasonably expect for them to enjoy their property.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policies ADPP1 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy HSG1 of West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007;  advice contained in West Berkshire Council Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Quality Design: Part 2 Residential Development; advice contained within the NPPF and guidance set out in the Newbury Town Design Statement (2005).

3.         Overlooking

The proposal is to subdivide an existing garden area and erect a new dwelling at the land adjacent to 5 Normay Rise. The siting is such that given existing the close proximity and sloping nature of the site the development is likely to result in direct overlooking of 5 Normay Rise Private Amenity Space. This would be detrimental to the level of amenity that these dwellings currently and should reasonably expect to enjoy.

This is contrary to policies ADPP1 and CS 14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and advice contained within the NPPF which seek to ensure new development does not adversely affect the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers.

4.         Lack of Information SUD

The application fails to address the need for information in regards to the impact it will have on the Sustainable Drainage Qualities of the site and the Area. As such the Local Planning Authority is unable to confirm whether or not the proposed development would increase flood risk on and off site. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 2006-2026, July 2012 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.