Agenda item

Proposal:	Proposed first floor extension to current bungalow and associated alterations, new sauna. Render entire property. Widen existing access.
Location:	Glendale Manor, Collaroy Road, Cold Ash
Applicant:	Mr and Mrs Hammond
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

 

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01864/HOUSE in respect of the proposed first floor extension to current bungalow and associated alterations, new sauna, plus rendering of the entire property and widening of the existing access at Glendale Manor, Collaroy Road, Cold Ash.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Philip Greatrix, objector, and Mr Stephen Hammond, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie introduced the report 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 strongly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Mr Greatrix in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         His wife had intended to address the Committee but had had to go home to look after their two young children.

·         They had lived next door to the property for two and a half years. In that time there had been ten applications to respond to.

·         They were not opposed to development so long as it was considerate. The Council’s policy regarding home extension advised that the impact on neighbours should be a primary concern.

·         The bedroom window would overlook Mr Greatrix’s property and the sauna would be located 30ft from his children’s bedrooms.

·         A condition had been removed from the previous permission which would impact on overlooking. The previous application had also included a restriction on outbuildings.

·         The applicant had made no attempts to address their neighbours’ views and had not been considerate.

·         There would be a detrimental impact on their privacy; Mr Greatrix’s son had already been subject to the Hammonds’ CCTV. This had been reported to the government watchdog.

·         Mr Greatrix and his family were being forced to change the way they lived in their own home as a result. This impacted upon his human right to live a private and family life.

·         Another developer on the road was unable to stand up to Mr Hammond because he was seeking an extension on his home.

·         The obscure glazing had been removed from the previous permission.

·         It would be possible for the applicant to amend the internal dimensions and move the proposed bedroom to the front of the property in order to reduce the impact on privacy but they had not.

5.    Councillor Beck asked Mr Greatrix to expand on his objection to the location of the sauna. Mr Greatrix explained that the sauna wound be sited on a lower ground level than the waste water pipe so when it was cleaned water would need to be pumped uphill. No account had been taken of the noise impact. The applicant had sent letter regarding the noise of Mr Greatrix’s children playing in the garden; their noise would not overshadow the noise of sauna parties.

6.    Councillor Bryant asked whether there was an objection to the simplified roof lines of the extension; Mr Greatrix advised that it was not a concern.

7.    Councillor Simpson asked for an estimate of the view Mr Greatrix would have into the proposed bedroom window. Mr Greatrix guessed that for someone of his height it would be 100% and for someone of his son’s height it would be around 30%. Councillor Simpson further asked what detail of Mr Greatrix’s home that applicants would be able to see from their bedroom window. Mr Greatrix advised that they would be able to see right through the house, including the study and people who entered the front door.

8.    Councillor Simpson noted that there had been letter from the applicant stating that their property was overlooked by Mr Greatrix’s garden and asked how much time the family spent there. Mr Greatrix advised that it was a small garden measuring around 10ft by 12ft. The family would have lunch in the garden in the summer and there was a trampoline and small lawn but the family did not use the garden frequently anymore.

9.    Mr Hammond in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He and his wife bought the property in 2012 as their forever home.

·         In February 2018 the Committee approved the extension, but the application was resubmitted in July 2018 with a redesigned rood, sauna and all weather surface to the front of the house.

·         Concerns had been expressed regarding the complex design of the roof so it had been simplified.

·         The extension would be inkeeping with the area.

·         The sauna would house a hot tub currently stored in a green polytunnel and the surface to the front of the property would support pedestrians.

10.Councillor Beck asked what would be the use of the room, about which the objector was concerned. Mr Hammond advised it would be a bedroom.

11.Councillor Hilary Cole asked if the sauna and hot tub would be stored in the same place; Mr Hammond confirmed that was correct.

12.Councillor Bryant asked for more information regarding pumping the hot tub. M Hammond advised that it would need to be emptied via a pump two or three times a year and refilled with a hose. The pump was portable.

13.Councillor Billy Drummond asked why the neighbours had not been consulted regarding the application. Mr Hammond advised that due to a number of disputes between them there was a police condition only to communicate via a solicitor.

14.In response to a query from Councillor Simpson,  Mr Hammond advised that the neighbour’s kitchen could not be seen from the loft window.

15.Councillor Simpson asked for more information regarding Mr Hammond’s statement that they were overlooked daily by Mr Greatrix’s property. Mr Hammond advised that it was a risk which existed permanently. Councillor Simpson expressed the view that Mr Hammond had made a gross overstatement.

16.Councillor Simpson in addressing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         The Parish Council had been unable to attend and had sent apologies.

·         There was a vexatious history and there had been no consultation.

·         Supplementary Planning Guidance on extensions was clear.

·         The application would be overdevelopment and increase overlooking. All other houses in the area had rooflights and Glendale Manor should reciprocate to lessen the impact on the neighbours.

·         He did not understand why the obscure glazing condition had been removed.

·         The Greatrix family suffered overlooking and a loss of privacy.

·         The scale of the sauna block was unacceptable and the balcony should be reviewed.

17.Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the extant permission granted by the Committee in February 2018 could be built out, regardless of the outcome of this application. Councillor Simpson expressed the view that the Committee had made the wrong decision.

18.Councillor Beck asked why Councillor Simpson objected to the siting of the sauna, who responded that it would be an area of entertainment clos to the children’s bedrooms next door.

19.Turning to questions for officers, Councillor Pick enquired what paragraph 6.3.4 of the committee report meant. Gemma Kirk advised that under Permitted Development Rights, the applicant could insert windows in the side elevation. Councillor Bryant asked whether it was in the Committee’s gift to remove Permitted Development Rights, Derek Carnegie confirmed it was. Derek Carnegie further reminded the Committee that the application approved in February 2018 could be built immediately.

20.Councillor James Cole asked whether it was in the Committee’s gift to change the windows. The Chairman advised that the Committee must determine the application before them.

21.In commencing the debate, Councillor Bryant noted that the Committee held an extensive discussion in February 2018. The sauna could be erected under Permitted Development Rights and the Committee had heard there would not be an issue with the noise. The objector had no issue with the roof line. He proposed that the Committee accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. Councillor Hilary Cole seconded the proposal.

22.In seconding the proposal, Councillor Hilary Cole expressed the view that people did not live in their bedroom and most people would be able to see into their neighbour’s garden form their bedroom. She stated that it was disappointing that the Committee were being asked to arbitrate a neighbour dispute; the applicant had advised that they could only communicate via a solicitor. The application was an improvement on the previous design and the applicant could hold parties sauna or no sauna.

23.Councillor James Cole considered that the problem would be the noise of parties in the sauna against the fence line.

24.Councillor Dennis Benneyworth determined that he would reluctantly accept the proposal as he did not believe that the Council would be successful at any appeal. He expressed the view that the applicant should have altered the internal design to locate the bedroom at the front of the property.

25.Councillor Pick stated that he was uncomfortable with the situation and undecided.

26.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Bryant, as seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

 

(i)            Location Plan (1:1250) 2775-01C received on 03.07.2018;

(ii)           Block Plan (1:200) 2775-05F received on 03.09.2017;

(iii)          Proposed 2775-05F received on 03.09.2017;

(iv)         Site Section A:A 2775-05F received on 07.09.2018;

(v)          Proposed Sauna 2775-05C received on 03.07.2018;

(vi)         Landscape Plan 2775-05F received on 23.10.2018;

 

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

 

3.    The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the approved plans.

 

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 Cold Ash and Ashmore Green Village Design Statement (2002).

 

4.    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).

 

5.    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 and buildings or any other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D, 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.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policies CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

 

6.    The gradient of private drives shall not exceed 1 in 8 or, where buildings are likely to be occupied by the mobility impaired, 1 in 12.

 

Reason: To ensure that adequate access to parking spaces and garages is provided. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

7.    No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until protective fencing is erected in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified in the Construction Site Plan Ref: 2775-05 F (A) received on 05.11.2018. At least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that the protective fencing has been erected. The protective fencing shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of the works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of  the NPPF (July 2018) and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.  A pre-commencement condition is necessary because the installation of tree protection measures is required to be undertaken before construction begins on site to ensure the protection of the trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

8.    The hereby permitted development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the Construction Method Statement (Oct 2018) received on 24.10.2018 and Construction Site Plan (2775-05 F (A)) received on 05.11.2018, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

9.    The hereby permitted development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the SuDS Drainage Plan (2775-05F) received on 23.10.2018, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

 

10.  The hereby approved extension shall not be brought into use until 2 metre obscure glazed privacy screens are fitted on the north and south elevations of the proposed balcony, in accordance with Proposed (2775-05F) received on 03.09.2018. The screens shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

 

Reason: To prevent overlooking of Alamein and the approved dwelling under 16/03610/FULD 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).

 

11.  The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking spaces have been surfaced and provided in accordance with the approved plans.  The parking spaces 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.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

Informatives: DEC4 (Approval – need for revision/ Reps rec’d), HI1 (Access construction), HI3 (Damage to footways, cycleways and verges), HI4 (Damage to carriageway), HI8 (Excavation in close proximity to the highway).