Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/02595/HOUSE in respect of a two storey rear extension at Cobb Cottage, Lambourn Road, Weston.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Caroline Conran, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie 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 recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Ms Conran in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There had been a significant number of objections to the application. Many were anonymous due to their sensitive nature.

·         The extension was not inkeeping with the area.

·         The application was retrospective to change the material of construction from brick to breeze block and render.

·         The grey colour was intrusive and visible from the riverbank. The plans were incorrect.

·         The Parish Council signed off the application without hearing the objections, possibly because the applicant was a councillor and the meeting was not quorate.

5.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked in what way the plans were incorrect. Ms Conran replied that she did not know but had been told that by others in the village. The Chairman recalled from the site visit that a door had not been bricked up.

6.    Councillor Pick asked why render would be unsuitable. Ms Conran expressed the view that brick would be softer and more countrified.

7.    Councillor Pick asked whether residents had been consulted, Ms Conran advised they had not.

8.    Councillor James Cole asked I the objections would stand if the extension was painted white. Ms Conran suspected they would.

9.    Councillor James Cole asked how long the cabin had been in the property’s garden. Ms Conran estimated around a year.

10.Councillor Garth Simpson noted that the property next door to the site was render with imitation mortar lines and was not clear what the objection was.

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

·         The extension had been constructed cheaply but render would be inkeeping with the area.

·         There were other issues at play which were not planning matters.

·         There was a hut with a chimney in the rear garden which was close to the river, a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). He hope that the Council’s planning enforcement officers would investigate.

12.Turning to questions for officers, Councillor Pick sought clarification that this was a retrospective application. Derek Carnegie explained that the extension already had planning permission and this application was retrospective to seek a change in materials.

13.Councillor Clive Hooker queried how far a developer could go using the wrong materials. Derek Carnegie advised that the applicant would know they were taking a chance and the Council had to deploy resources to enforce planning conditions carefully.

14.Councillor James Cole asked whether a decision had been taken not to enforce. Derek Carnegie advised that officers regularly had to prioritise enforcement resources.

15.Regarding the cabin in the rear garden it was noted that the matter might come under building control rather than planning regulations. 

16.Councillor Bryant proposed that the Committee accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Pick.

17.In seconding the proposal, Councillor Pick stated that all letters of objection were identical. In situations where an applicant did not consult their neighbours, disputes arose. Determination of the application was not a proper use of the Committee’s time it could have been handled promptly by officers under delegated powers. He urged the residents and the applicant to resolve their differences.

18.Councillor James Cole agreed with Councillor Pick. He stated that now enforcement issues had been identified, these needed to be actioned by the Council.

19.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on Councillor Bryant’s proposal as seconded by Councillor Pick. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

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

Conditions

1.         The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Ellard 2017/06 Revision F received on 5 November 2018 and 2017/03 received on 11 October 2018.

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

2.         The materials to be used in this development shall be as specified on the plans or the application forms.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

3.         The new bathroom window at first floor level on the front (south) elevation shall be fitted with obscure glass before occupation.  The obscure glazing shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.  Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any subsequent revision), no additional openings shall be inserted in the side elevations of the development hereby approved.

Reason:  In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 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).