Agenda item

Proposal:	Resubmission of previously approved scheme for a replacement dwelling (17/03089/FULD) to provide a summer house/exercise room to the rear of the dwelling house.
Location:	Site of former 145 Priory Road, Hungerford
Applicant:	John and Sylvia Downe
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission.

 

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02623/FULD in respect of the resubmission of a previously approved scheme for a replacement dwelling (17/03089/FULD) to provide a summer house/exercise room to the rear of the dwelling house.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Jan Giggins and Mrs Doris Colloff, objectors, and Mr John Downe, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    The Chairman notified the Committee that a member of the public was recording the meeting and asked whether any members of the public had any objections to being filmed. No objections were raised.

4.    The Chairman also notified the Committee that Mrs Giggins had submitted a request to extend speaking time to 10 minutes from the usual 5 minutes. The Chairman declined the request on the basis that this was not a major application and it would be unfair to other speakers who would have prepared shorter presentations.

5.    Lydia Mather introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

6.    Mrs Giggins and Mrs Colloff in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was incomplete and invalid. The committee report was incomplete, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect. Before the Committee determined the application all Members should visit the site.

·         The Committee should reconsider the extant permission for the house.

·         Mrs Giggins advised she had also requested that her husband be registered to speak by the Planning Registration Team but this request had not been acknowledged.

(Post meeting note: The Planning Registration Team confirmed that Mrs Giggins had not submitted a request for her husband to speak.)

·         Formerly an application on the site had been approved with permitted development rights removed; this restriction should be maintained.

·         The application requested retrospective permission for the house in order to cover mistakes. A basement swimming pool had been approved under a previous permission but had not been built.

·         Approval of the application would reset permitted development rights and so encourage overdevelopment.

·         The house that had been built on the site was larger than neighbouring properties.

·         They disputed that the previous permission should have been granted.

·         The applicant had not submitted a view of the street scene with the application.

·         The applicant had ignored the conditions of previous permissions and approval of this application would reward bad behaviour.

·         The landscaping scheme had not yet been planted.

·         Restrictions should be imposed to prevent the pool building being converted into a dwelling in the future.

7.    Councillor Jeff Beck asked why the application was invalid and contradictory. Mrs Giggins stated that the application description on the planning portal only made reference to the pool house and other amendments when in fact the application was also retrospective for the dwelling which was already being built on the site. No street scene had been submitted as part of the application. Submitted plans were also based on previously approved plans rather than up to date architectural drawings and this was misleading. Permitted development rights had previously been restricted on the site which was why the application required determination. Different protections were proposed as part of this application to what had previously been agreed. Mrs Colloff added that the plans implied that there was a gap between the garage and the neighbouring property. The site plan also made neighbouring houses appear larger than they were.

8.    Mr Downe, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He and his wife sought to create an energy efficient lifetime home to enjoy with their grandchildren.

·         This application sought to add to the house a south facing summer house to accommodate a small exercise pool. It would be low level and of a timber construction.

·         No environmental concerns had been raised by the Environmental Health Team.

·         Any of their neighbours would be free to construct a similar summerhouse as the dimensions were permissible under permitted development rights, even in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         In response to claims that the site was overdeveloped, the house footprint was less than 1% greater than the previous dwelling on the site. The car port included in the S73 application added only another 2% to the overall developed proportion of the site. This application would add another 3.5%. Overall less than one fifth of the site would be built on and the site would include 650m² of open garden.

9.    Councillor Paul Hewer sought confirmation of the position of the car port. Mr Downe advised that from the road the car port was on the right of the building.

10.Councillor Hewer asked officers to clarify the status of the application. Lydia Mather confirmed that the application covered the construction of a house and outbuilding. The application was retrospective in as much as a house had already begun to be built on site, although in accordance with a previous permission.

11.Councillor Hewer in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         He had sympathy with the neighbours. He had been taken aback by the scale of the development.

·         The summerhouse would be 2.3m high, just over the height of a standard fence.

·         The planting scheme would block the views of the summer house.

·         The application was acceptable and he could not find a reason not to support the application.

12.Moving to questions to officers, Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether street scenes were required to be submitted with every application. Derek Carnegie confirmed that they were not required.

13.Councillor Hilary Cole sought clarity on the permitted development rights, and asked whether the matter was irrelevant considering that the application was being determined by the Committee. Lydia Mather confirmed that permitted development rights had been removed under a previous application, however this was not the permission which had been implemented on the site. If the Committee were minded to approve the application they could apply a condition to remove permitted development rights. Councillor Hilary Cole confirmed that construction of the house could still go ahead under the previous permission, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application. Lydia Mather stated that she had sought legal advice which confirmed that was the case.

14.Councillor Hilary Cole commented that a number of the objection letters were from residents outside Hungerford and she felt this was an abuse of the call-in process.

15.Councillor James Cole sought clarification on why the application had been resubmitted and asked if the plans for the main house had changed. Lydia Mather advised that the application was identical and the house plans had the same reference numbers. When the application was submitted, the Planning Registration Team queried the resubmission of the plans for the house but this application was what was presented by the applicant. Proposed conditions had been amended from the former permission to include trigger points for actions to be taken.

16.Councillor Simpson sought clarification on the site history. Lydia Mather advised that application number 17/01709/FULD had been approved and then varied via application 17/03089/FULD, which had been implemented. Application 17/02942/COND1 had approved details of conditions.

17.In commencing the debate, Councillor James Cole expressed the view that there was no difference between the previously approved house on the site and the retrospective application before the Committee. The only feature for the Committee to determine was the outbuilding and this would not have been a matter for the Committee if submitted on its own.

18.Councillor Hilary Cole agreed with Councillor James Cole and proposed that the Committee accept officers’ recommendations and grant planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing.

19.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal, which at the vote was carried unanimously.

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

Conditions

1.    Commencement of Outbuilding

Development of the domestic outbuilding hereby permitted as shown on the block plan 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).

2.    Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings 001 Rev B, 002 Rev B, 518/026/01 Rev A, 518/026/02 Rev A, 003 Rev A, 004 Rev A, 005 Rev A, and 17.DWN.501 Rev C and Planning Statement by Altas Planning received on 10 October 2018.

Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning in accordance with policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS13, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

3.    Construction Management Statement

The development hereby permitted shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Method Statement received on 24 October 2017 approved by 17/02942/COND1.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy TRANS. 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

4.    Hours of Work

No external 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 in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

5.    Deliveries

During the development no deliveries shall be taken at the site within the following hours:

08:20am - 09:05am and 14:50pm - 15:50pm, Mondays to Fridays.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, and the interests of highway safety particularly pedestrians at the neighbouring school in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6.    Materials schedule for outbuilding

No development above ground level of the outbuilding hereby approved as shown on the block plan shall take place until a schedule of the materials, including final colour, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the outbuilding has been submitted to and 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.  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 in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.

7.    Surfacing

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the driveway has been surfaced in accordance with the approved details on drawing 17.DWN.501 Rev C received on 10 October 2018.                                               

Reason: To avoid migration of loose material onto the highway in the interest of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

8.    Parking

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning space have been surfaced and provided in accordance with the approved drawing 17.DWN.501 Rev C received on 10 October 2018.  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

9.    Balcony Screen

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the balcony at first floor level on the northern side of the rear elevation (adjacent to 143 Priory Road) has been fitted with an obscure glass screen in accordance with approved drawings 005 Rev A and 004 Rev A received on 10 October 2018. The obscure glazed screen shall be retained in perpetuity, until the balcony is removed. Any replacement shall be like for like, or details of an alternative screen shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the screen is changed and which shall then be retained in perpetuity or until the balcony is removed.

Reason:  In the interests of neighbouring amenity and to minimise overlooking of the private amenity space at 143 Priory Road in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.

10. Plant Machinery in Outbuilding

The domestic outbuilding hereby permitted as shown on the block plan shall not be brought into use until the plant for the endless pool has been installed in accordance with paragraphs 2.15 to 2.20 of the Planning Statement by Atlas Planning received on 10 October 2018. Any replacement of the plant machinery for the endless pool shall be like for like or details of an alternative along with details of its noise output shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity and to minimise noise in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

11. Landscaping

All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan 17.DWN.501 Rev C received on 10 October 2018 and with the exception of the dates stated the Landscape Implementation, Maintenance and Management Plan by RALD received on 12 June 2017 approved by 17/01709/FULD and 17/03089/FULD. The landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following the first occupation of the dwelling. Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of the approved landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.

12. Spoil

All spoil arising from the development hereby approved shall be removed from site within 3 months of completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.