Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01516/HOUSE in respect of the erection of a garden room with quiet room and WC/shower to the rear of the existing dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mrs Tracey Godsmark, Mr Clive Sturgess and Mr David Sheppard, objectors and Mr Shinkwin, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Bob Dray introduced the report to Members of the Committee, which recommended conditional approval, and ran through the key points. He highlighted the previous appeal decision that had been dismissed for a similar proposal on the site, and a copy of which was included within the update report.

Objector Representations

Mrs Godsmark, Mr Sturgess and Mr Sheppard in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Godsmark stated that she had lived with her husband in Ashampstead for 34 years. She believed the dwelling (Grimms Dyke) as it stood was already overbearing.

·         Mrs Godsmark questioned how planning regulations could ensure that there was adequate landscaping on the site.

·         There was concern that the proposed outbuilding could be used for residential purposes in the future.

·         The volume of the proposal was 29% larger than the proposal submitted in 2016, which had subsequently been refused at appeal.

·         Mrs Godsmark stated that it would be easy for the outbuilding to be served by a separate driveway. She stressed that Members should not be misled in to thinking the dwelling would not be used in this way.

·         Mr Sturgess lived at Foxborough, which was adjacent to Grimms Dyke.

·         This was the fifth application that had been submitted for the location in three years. He was surprised that the application was being considered as a similar application had been refused at appeal in 2016.

·         The proposed outbuilding would incorporate a quiet room and this had immediately set alarm bells ringing for Mr Sturgess. He was aware that the applicant was involved with teaching meditation and in his view the proposal would be used for this purpose.

·         The original application had been submitted with a view to providing accommodation for the applicant’s son and the use had changed with each application that had been submitted.

·         Mr Sturgess felt that it was strange that the proposal incorporated a garden room despite it not benefiting from views of the garden.

·         The site which stood within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was already overdeveloped in Mr Sturgess’s view. The house was overbearing and was out of keeping with the local landscape and architecture.

·         Tree and shrubs had recently been removed from the site by the applicant, which had come as a shock to residents living nearby.

·         Councillor Alan Law (Ward Member) had been asked to refer the application to the Eastern Area Planning Committee for consideration.

·         Mr Sturgess felt that a professional landscaping scheme should be approved by the West Berkshire Council Planning Department before the application was considered.

Questions to Objectors from Members

Councillor Emma Webster suggested that the objectors read conditions four and seven in the planning officer’s report regarding residential annex use and landscaping. Councillor Webster asked if these conditions reassured the objectors regarding some of the comments that they had made. Mr Sturgess, Mrs Godsmark and Mr Sheppard confirmed that they felt the highlighted conditions would adequately deal with issues they had around residential annex use and landscaping.

Councillor Webster further queried where the photos had been taken from, which had been submitted to the planning department and shown during the objector’s speech. Mr Sturgess confirmed that one of the photos had been taken from the road, prior to the trees and shrubs being removed. Mr Sturgess confirmed that one of the photos had been taken from the road, prior to the trees and shrubs being removed. Mrs Godsmark stated that the photos showed that the property had once been adequately secluded. Mr Sturgess stated that he used to have some fir trees that stood 40 foot tall at the end of his garden that backed onto Grimms Dyke. An engineer carrying out digger work for the applicant had cut though the roots of these trees and as a result they had fallen down.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the volume increase stated by Mrs Godsmark. Mrs Godsmark reiterated that the proposal would be 29% larger in volume than the proposal that had been refused at appeal in 2016.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he had carried out some calculations and explained that two sides of the proposed building equated to 8090 metres and 7700 metres. The former plans for the application refused at appeal in 2016 had measurements of 9850 and 6070 metres. Councillor Bridgman struggled to see how there would be an increase in volume of 29%. Mrs Godsmark stated that her figures had been provided by a professional engineer. She admitted that she was not mathematically minded however stated that she did have details of the footprint figures from the engineer. The 2016 application had a length of 9.9 metres, a width of 6 metres and height of 5.1 metres and the present proposal had a length of 7.7 metres, a width of 8.3 metres and height of 4.3 metres. Mrs Godsmark added that her figures for the current application included the balustrade and overall calculated that there would be an 8% increase in footprint.

Councillor Bridgman noted that Mrs Godsmark’s figures included the balustrade and this is why the figures differed to his own calculations. Mrs Godsmark stated that if the balustrade was excluded from the figures there would be an overall increase in volume of 25% from the previous application.

Agent Representation

Mr Shinkwin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Various purposes were intended for the proposed ancillary building and none of these purposes were sinister.

·         The garden room would also provide a room where his son could stay, as it would have wheelchair access. Mr Shinkwin added that his son had a job in London and was only required to be in the city four days per week. The proposal would offer his son suitable accommodation away from the city.

·         Regarding landscaping, he was committed to having landscaping carried out and the spoil would create a screen.

·         Mr Shinkwin had met with Mr Sturgess when the problem with the trees had occurred and he felt that Mr Sturgess’s account of the matter had been completely exaggerated. The workman operating the digger had done so within the curtilage however, because the ground was largely chalk the roots of Mr Sturgess’ trees had grown past the boundary into Mr Shinkwin’s garden. Only one tree had fallen as a result of the work undertaken.

·         Mr Shinkwin added that he had asked Mr Sturgess prior to the work if he had wanted any of his trees removed and Mr Sturgess had highlighted that he would have the ones at the bottom of his garden removed by his gardener. Mr Shinkwin stated that they had taken the trees down for Mr Sturgess.

Questions to Applicant from Members 

Councillor Marigold Jaques noted that Mr Shinkwin had said that his son would live at the proposed ancillary building three days per week and asked if this was correct. Mr Shinkwin explained that his son worked in Parliament and that the parliamentary terms could be likened to school terms. The aim was to provide his son with a quiet room as he was very sensitive to noise. Councillor Jaques struggled to see how Mr Shinkwin’s son coped with London if he was sensitive to noise and Mr Shinkwin stated that he had no choice as that was where his job was located.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the plans detailed a games room and queried why a shower was required for such a facility. Mr Shinkwin stated that this would provide his son with a bathroom when he stayed.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe had noted the site of a former garage at the site visit and asked if this had been pulled down as part of conditions. Mr Shinkwin confirmed that this had not been removed as part of conditions. He stated that they had contacted West Berkshire Council’s planning department and had been advised that if they took the building down this would be factored into any planning applications in the future.  

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Pamela Bale noted from what had been stated by Mr Shinkwin that the description of the proposal contained in the report was not correct as it did not mention residential use. Bob Dray stated that the application should be read as a whole, including the submitted plans as well as the description. He was satisfied that the description was not flawed and that overall what was proposed was sufficiently clear.

Councillor Bridgman noted in the update report that condition seven referred to application 153378 and that this differed to the number in the planning report. Bob Dray stated that update sheet should also refer to the planning application 153379.

Further to the question raised by Councillor Bale, Councillor Bridgman asked if the application had included a description of the proposal, which included residential use, if this would make a difference to the way Members considered the application. Bob Dray reported that the proposal was clearly presented as an ancillary outbuilding, and therefore it had been considered correctly.  Such an outbuilding could be lawfully used for any purpose or activity provided it remained ancillary or incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling. Condition four stated that the building should not be used at any time for purposes incidental and/or ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Grimms Dyke. If the proposal was used for purposes other than that stated in condition four then enforcement action could be taken. Bob Dray confirmed that he was satisfied that although the proposed building was detached it was within close proximately to the main house. There were controls that could be enforced if a material change of use occurred without permission.

Councillor Bridgman noted that the photos showed a mixture of gravel and grass leading up to where the proposed building would stand. Councillor Bridgman asked what would happen if the applicant decided to tarmac this and place a balustrade around it. He queried if this would breach any planning laws and if planning permission would be required. Bob Dray stated that hard standing could normally be provided to the rear of a dwelling under permitted development.

Councillor Macro referred back to the Inspector’s appeal decision. There had previously been concern raised by the Council that the access leading to the proposed building could be used as a separate driveway and Councillor Macro asked how this had changed in the current application. There was concern that condition four would not prevent this from happening. Bob Dray stated that condition four was a standard condition used. The previous application had proposed that the building be positioned further away from the main house, which would likely have affected the Council’s viewpoint on that particular application. From checking the 2016 planning report, Bob Dray confirmed that there had indeed been concern about the distance of the building from the main dwelling. This was something that was taken into account when considering if a proposal could be used as a separate dwelling and whether there was potential for conversion.  Bob Dray stated that these concerns were not shared with the current application due to its close relationship with the main house.

Councillor Webster referred to condition four and asked if officers were satisfied that the building would be for ancillary purposes only now that the applicant had stated that one of the rooms would be used as a bedroom. Bob Dray stated that this kind of habitable accommodation would not be classed as an incidental use, but he was satisfied that the outbuilding was for ancillary use.

Councillor Quentin Webb noted from Mr Shinkwin’s comments that the spoil would be used to change the topography of the area and queried if this would be covered by condition seven. Bob Dray stated that any significant creation of spoil would require planning permission. Bob Dray added that levels were shown within the plans. Regarding a condition on spoil, Bob Dray explained that a site as large in size as that being considered would have the ability to spread top soil across the area potentially without resulting in such an engineering operation, however through conditions it could be ensured that the level of any spoil deposited was acceptable.

Councillor Jaques noted from point 11 on page three of the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision that there was concern that the previously proposed building could be used as a separate dwelling. Councillor Jaques asked how Members could now feel satisfied that conditions would prevent this from happening. Bob Dray stated that he was comfortable given the size of the building and proximity to the main house that the proposal was for ancillary use only.

Councillor Webster stated since the previous application in 2016, there had been changes made to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding enhancing the natural environment and asked Bob Dray if he was satisfied that the proposal adhered to these changes. . Bob Dray confirmed that he was happy that the application was in line with the revised NPPF, and in particular the great weight that should be applied to conserving the scenic and natural beauty of the AONB, which had remained the same.

The Debate

Councillor Bridgman commented that the application should pose a reasonably straight forward decision. He did not feel however, that Planning Policy C6 was as well worded as it could be. The use of the building by the applicant’s disabled son was not a critical factor in Councillor Bridgman’s view and he also did not feel that the creation of a separate driveway was something Members should be concerned about. Councillor Bridgman felt that the critical factor was landscaping and he was happy to propose that Members accept the Officer recommendation to approve the application if a condition regarding landscaping was added.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe stated that he was happy to second Councillor Bridgman’s proposal. The site had transformed over the years from what was once a chicken farm with a rodent issue. With this in mind he would have expected residents to support the new plans however he understood that the design of the site was out of character with the area. The outbuilding would be ancillary to the main dwelling and would be well hidden. Councillor Metcalfe could not find a reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Quentin Webb stated that he was also happy to support the proposal and felt that the conditions addressed the issues that had been raised. Councillor Webb had no issue with the landscaping if his suggestion regarding ground levels could be included to strengthen conditions.

Councillor Richard Somner concurred with what had been said and agreed that the condition referred to by Councillor Webb needed reviewing.

Councillor Webster stated that she was struggling with the application because she would have expected the intended use of the outbuilding to have been included in the description of the proposal. She asked Officers if they felt that condition four was strong enough now that they were aware that part of the building would be used as a bedroom. Councillor Webster’s main concern was around enforcement action should it be required, and whether more detailed requirements should be added to the condition.

Bob Dray stated that in planning land use was the main concern, and the recommended condition was considered sufficient.  It was considered that a condition seeking to govern the selling or leasing of the land would unreasonably interfere with proprietary right, and that absolute restrictions on trade were excessive given the increase in a working from home culture.  The key consideration to ensure that any use remain ancillary or incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling was achieved by the condition.

Councillor Webster noted from the objectors’ comments that the building could be used for meditation purposes and if this became a regular occurrence it would have more of an impact on the local area such as highways. Councillor Webster asked if Bob Dray was happy that the condition covered such an eventuality. Bob Dray confirmed that he was satisfied that the condition provided enough control and would prevent established events taking place. Sporadic events were unlikely to amount to a material change of use and would rarely be problematic. If events however became regular occurrences then a material change of use could occur which required planning permission.  This would also amount to a breach of condition which the Council would then have ten years to enforce against.

Councillor Webb felt that there was still a condition required regarding the topography of the ground around the site. Bob Dray stated that condition eight covered the removal of spoil and condition seven covered landscaping. Councillor Webb was concerned that these conditions were still not strong enough. Councillor Bridgman suggested condition eight be amended to read ‘or being brought into the development’. Councillor Somner concurred and felt that condition eight also needed to state ‘the movement of soil’.

Bob Day recommended that the best way to deal with Members concerns would be to leave conditions seven and eight unaltered but add a ninth condition for the prior approval of existing and proposed ground levels.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Bridgman and seconded by Councillor Metcalfe and at the vote the motion was carried, with the addition of a condition requiring the prior approval of details of existing and proposed ground levels.

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

Conditions

Informatives: