Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Beck 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.)

(Councillors Jeanette Clifford, Billy Drummond and Adrian Edwards declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Foundation Governors at St Bartholomew's School and the school owned a property at 5 Buckingham Road. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial 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 18/01001/HOUSE in respect of 25 Buckingham Road, Newbury for the erection of a single storey rear extension; garage conversion to playroom and utility; re-tile existing house with slate tiles; render existing house and extension; removal of existing chimney stacks; alterations to existing porch and bay windows; internal alterations.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Simon Weaver and Matthew Scaplehorn, applicant/agent and Councillor Anthony Pick, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in to the Committee by Councillor Pick due to concerns about the impact on the character of the area.  The application took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations and Derek Carnegie concluded that the proposals were acceptable.  Therefore, on balance Officers recommended the Committee should grant planning permission.

4.         The Chairman added for clarity that Councillor Pick had called the item into the Committee because of his concerns about the use of slates on the roof of the property and the removal of the chimneys.

5.         Simon Weaver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He was the applicant, had lived in Newbury all his life and had purchased the property as a home for his family.

·           The property required a considerable amount of modernisation both internally and externally and he wanted it to last beyond his family’s forthcoming requirements.  Therefore they wished to bring the house up-to-date through the use of modern materials.

·           However, they wanted to be good neighbours and did not want to cause any offence with the alterations.  Consequently he had attended the meeting so that he could understand the various objections.

6.    Councillor Hilary Cole asked why the chimneys were being removed.  Mr Weaver replied that as there was no purpose in retaining the fire places, there did not seem any reason to retain the chimneys.  In addition, it seemed appropriate to remove them whilst the construction work was being undertaken, as there might come a time in the future when they would need to be removed.

7.    Councillor Pick asked about the motivation for rendering the house. Mr Weaver responded that they had liked the look of the dwelling opposite and felt this would be in keeping with the neighbourhood.

8.    Councillor James Cole commented that he had just reinstated two chimneys at his own property and consequently he was curious about this decision, as it would be difficult for future occupiers to put them back.  Mr Weaver noted that although his family did not have any use for the chimneys, future occupants might have a different view.

9.    Councillor Garth Simpson enquired as to whether the batons on the roof had been reusable and Mr Scaplehorn advised him that the roof had leaked and it had not been possible to reuse the existing roof tiles.

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

·         The properties in Buckingham Road dated from the Edwardian period to the 1930s and made an important contribution to Newbury’s historical background, which should be conserved.

·         Councillor Gina Hawkins had tried to obtain conservation status for Buckingham Road in 2006, but this had been unsuccessful.

·         The property was of special interest in the road due to its location and the change in style was very drastic.

·         He did not object to the property being modernised but he felt that the changes would make it stand out from the neighbouring properties.

·         In conclusion, he felt the application should be refused and the applicant requested to make more sympathetic changes to the property.

11.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked if Councillor Pick had raised any objections to the planning application for the new property on the corner of Fifth Road and Buckingham Road referred to in Derek Carnegie’s presentation.  Councillor Pick replied that he could not remember if he had.

12.      Councillor Hilary Cole asked if Councillor Pick’s concerns were objective or subjective in nature, as she noted that the Newbury Historical Society had not commented on the proposals.  Councillor Pick advised that he was objecting to the subjective content and his observations were based on the character of the area.

13.      Councillor Simpson asked how closely the proposals had followed the architecture of the Edwardian period, to which Councillor Pick replied that he did not know.

14.      Councillor Edwards questioned whether it would have been possible for the new houses built on the site of the old school to have been developed in the same style as the rest of Buckingham Road.  Councillor Pick noted that these houses should have been more in keeping with the neighbourhood and reiterated that his remarks were based on his concerns for the impact of this development on the area

15.      Councillor Drummond commented that as there had only been one objection to the proposal, it did not warrant the Committee voting against the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application. Councillor Pick responded that he had called in the application to enable Members to consider it and he encouraged them to maintain the character of the area.

16.      Councillor Beck remarked that the application did not included any conditions relating to the contractors’ working hours or parking of their vehicles and since this development was near a school, it would be useful for these to be included.

17.      Derek Carnegie drew Members’ attention to the fact that most of the work being carried out was permitted development, the Highways Authority had not raised any concerns and the agent and contractors were working sensibly on the site. However it would be possible to add these two conditions if Members required him to do so.

18.      Councillor James Cole enquired whether the roof was being constructed with slate or base slate and he was advised that it was base slate.

19.      Councillor James Cole further added that Derek Carnegie had mentioned the site would be screened by trees, however trees did not maintain their leaves all year round.  Derek Carnegie replied he was not suggesting the site should be landscaped with screening but, as the road was tree lined, the development would not have a considerable impact on the neighbourhood.

20.      Councillor Edwards referred Members to Point 5.2 on Page 21 of the report, which noted that dwellings in Buckingham Road had been extended and altered and he commented that this was not the case with all the properties. He further added that Point 5.3 stated the site was set back and vegetation provided screening, however this had all been removed. Derek Carnegie clarified that the report referred to the large tree on the footpath outside the property, which had a softening effect and the plans also included some landscaping.

21.      In considering the above application, Councillor Bryant commented that although he would like to see the chimneys and roof tiles retained, Buckingham Road was not a conservation area.  In addition, the chimneys could be removed under Permitted Development Rights and consequently, it would be perverse to refuse the application.  In addition, a refusal was unlikely to be upheld by the Planning Inspector and therefore, Councillor Bryant proposed that Members should approve the application. This was seconded by Councillor Beck.

22.      Councillor Simpson pointed out that the roof tiles of a number of properties in Buckingham Road needed to be replaced and it was not possible to be prescriptive about the materials used, as this would be determined by householders’ budgets. However he was concerned about the removal of the chimneys, as this would have an impact on the street scene.

23.      Councillor James Cole confirmed that he would not be able to vote in favour of the proposal and would abstain if necessary, as he did not agree that the change in the street scene was necessary.

24.      Councillor Edwards commented that he had lived near to Buckingham Road for over 40 years and he was aware from the previous owner that the roof leaked.  He had every sympathy with Councillor Pick’s concerns as he had helped to draft the Town Design Statement, which stated that street scenes should be retained where possible.  It was not possible to change the policy that allowed for alterations to properties under Permitted Development Rights but he felt consideration should be given to the Town Design Statement.  Consequently he would also be abstaining, although he had respect for the applicant’s endeavours to modernise the property.

25.      Councillor Clifford interjected that she knew Buckingham Road well and felt the alterations would make it a handsome house.  As a result, it would not be appropriate to refuse the application.

26.      Councillor Simpson reiterated that a number of the houses in the road were not in good condition and it would be necessary for householders to update them. Some of the properties had already been rendered with pebbledash and consequently the diversity in the road would change over time.

27.      Councillor James Cole noted that the street scene had to begin somewhere and in this instance it started at the junction with Fifth Road.  Therefore the new property on the roundabout opposite was not part of the street scene.

28.      Councillor Hilary Cole drew Members’ attention to the fact they had spent 45 minutes discussing an application that could have been allowed under Permitted Development Rights. However it was right that the Committee considered the various Town and Parish Design Statements when forming their conclusions. Nevertheless, there had been a considerable amount of subjective comment on the application and it was now necessary to look at it objectively. Councillor Cole concluded that Members did not live in a society where the status quo could be maintained and they had to accept a degree of change.

29.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal from Councillor Bryant, as seconded by Councillor Beck to approve the application, with the two additional conditions.  At the vote, five Members voted in favour of the application, one Member voted against it and Councillors James Cole, Adrian Edwards and Garth Simpson abstained.

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

Conditions

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be started within 3 years from the date of this permission and implemented in strict accordance with the approved plans.

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.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below:

(i)      Location Plan (1:2500) received on 30.04.2018;

(ii)     Block Plan received on 31.07.2018;

(iii)    Drawing No.002 received on 10.08.2018.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026).

 3.     A schedule of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the hereby permitted works is required to be submitted within 2 weeks of the decision and is required to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application.  Samples of the materials shall be made available for inspection on request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

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 (July 2018), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004) and the Newbury Town Design Statement (July 2018).

 4.     The proposed first floor opening on the north-west elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass within 1 month of being installed. The obscure glazing shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of 27 Buckingham Road in the interests of amenity. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), 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.     No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason:   To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 6.     A Construction Method Statement is required to be submitted within 2 months of the decision and is required to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide for:

(a)     The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(b)     Loading and unloading of plant and materials including delivery times;

(c)     Storage of plant and materials used in the construction of the development.

Thereafter the construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: In interests of highway safety due to the close proximity of St Bartholomew’s School. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).