Agenda item

Councillors Quentin Webb, Marigold Jaques and Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the objectors to the application were known to them. 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 Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the neighbour of the applicant was known to him. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02365/HOUSE in respect of a single storey side and rear extension.

It was noted by Members that conditions, should planning permission be granted, were included within the update report pack.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn and

Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn objectors, and Mr Adam Pusey, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn and Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn reported that he was also representing his father who lived close to the proposal however, was currently unwell.

·                    His main concerns regarded the size and proportion of the proposed extension. Any extension on the back of a semi-detached property would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours.

·                    The area was very rural and consisted of many open spaces including Frilsham Green. 

·                    He referred to the Development Plan 2006 and stated that he had not expected when buying a house in an area as rural as Frilsham, that amenity could be compromised to such an extent. He was of the impression that certain criteria had to be met.

·                    No other development within the village had imposed an impact to such a negative degree. There would be a reduction in amenity and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

·                    Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn stated that his garden was a place of greenery however, this would change if the extension was approved due to the density of the proposal.

·                    The huge increase in floor-space would set a precedent in the village.

·                    Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn stated that the extension to his property carried out in 2003 had been much smaller in scale.

·                    He was not objecting to the principle of the proposal but to the unacceptable increase in size currently proposed.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted that there had been three previous applications for an extension on the site that had been refused and he asked if they had all been large in size. Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn stated that they had all been double storey. The recent application was only single storey however, protruded further outwards rather than upwards.

Councillor Emma Webster asked for clarification on which rooms would be closest to the extension and what they were used for. Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn confirmed that the kitchen and living room of his property would be affected and the bedroom and kitchen of his neighbour would be affected.

Councillor Keith Chopping noted that Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn already had an extension on his property and felt that it was similar in design to that proposed, in that it went around the corner of the property. Councillor Chopping therefore noted that Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn was objecting in essence because the extension was larger. Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn stated that he was not aware that any objections had been raised regarding the extension to his property. He stated that if the proposal was smaller in size then he would be supporting it. It was the impact on neighbouring amenity due to the sheer scale of the proposed extension that was posing a problem.

Mr Adam Pusey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         When Mr Pusey submitted the proposal, he had moved the extension away from the boundary by two metres to try and limit the impact upon his neighbours.

·         There were similar extensions along the road that were built up to the boundary.

·         There was a 1950s concrete garage near to the boundary on the application site and the proposal involved taking this down and moving it away from the boundary. This would help reduce the impact upon neighbours.

·         The size of the proposed extension fell with the acceptable remit detailed in local planning policy.

·         Property number three had an extension, which protruded out five metres behind the property and blocked the view for three bungalows. The only impact the proposed extension would have on these properties would be the view of a roof line. 

·         Mr Pusey had gone out of his way to change the application to mitigate objections raised. He had even changed plans to include a flat roof however, this had not been acceptable.

·         Number 22 extended out as far as the proposal, however it was also two storey. There were also other similar extensions along the road.

·         Neighbouring properties had extensions and Mr Pusey wanted his property to have the same. He strongly disagreed with the point raised that there would be loss of light to numbers three and five, because the extension would only be single storey.

Councillor Marigold Jaques noted that there was two metres between Mr Pusey’s house and the adjacent property and asked who owned the hedge line. Mr Pusey confirmed that he owned the hedge line and this would be maintained.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe stated that the debate revolved around the deprivation of light to property number three and asked if number three had objected to the flat roof. It was confirmed that property number five had objected to this proposal.

Councillor Quentin Webb, Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had been engaged with the site over many years due to its planning history.

·         He felt that the proposal was acceptable for the site and would not cause an unacceptable impact on property number three.

·         He was pleased to see within the conditions that permitted development rights would be removed if the application was approved.

·         He was satisfied with the density and design in relation to the street scene.

·         He did not feel there would be a large loss of light to property number three and he therefore expressed his support for the application.

Councillor Emma Webster raised a query about ‘Right to Light’ contained within the BRV survey. David Pearson confirmed that ‘Right to Light’ was not a planning consideration. The officer’s report included calculations regarding the angle of the extension and had concluded that its impact was acceptable. The extension was set back by three metres to the southern side and was also single storey. Therefore it was at a level that was considered acceptable. Mr Pearson informed Members that property number three had permission to build a conservatory in the gap up to the boundary line however, it was unknown if this would go ahead.

Councillor Crumly asked for clarification that all previous applications had been double storey and Mr Pearson confirmed that they had been.

Councillor Chopping felt that the application was in line with planning policy and therefore proposed officer recommendation to approve planning permission. This was seconded by Council Crumly.

Councillor Metcalfe stated that he had no issue with the proposal regarding the increase in footprint. He was sympathetic to the objections raised by neighbours concerning the loss of light. The fact that the extension was proposed for the southern side of the property was a disadvantage in his view as it could cause shadowing. Councillor Metcalfe commented that although he had reservations about the proposal he did not feel it was unacceptable.

Councillor Richard Somner commended the efforts taken by the applicant to mitigate issues raised about the previous applications.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Chopping, seconded by Councillor Crumly. At the vote the motion to approve planning permission was carried.

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

Conditions

1.            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), to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.            Plans approved:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing numbers P01 01, P01 03, P01 04, P01 05, P01 06 and P01 07 received on 17.08.2017.

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

3.            Materials as specified:

The materials to be used in this development shall be as specified on the plans or the application forms. No other materials shall be used unless prior agreement in writing has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  In the interest of proper planning in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4.            Permitted Development removal:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, C and E of that Order shall be carried out, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason:   To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area and qualities of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies C1, C3 and C6 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2006-2026), and the West Berkshire Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

Informatives

Right to enter third party land: You must obtain the prior consent of the owner and occupier of any land upon which it is necessary for you to enter in order construct, externally finish, decorate, or in any other  way carry out any works in connection with this development, or to obtain any support from adjoining property.  This permission granted by the Council in no way authorises you to take such action without first obtaining this consent.

Damage to footway, cycleway or verge: The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

Damage to carrigeway: The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

Reason for decision (objections received): 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 secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Reasons for approval: The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service or the Council website.