Agenda item

Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Thatcham Town Council and the Planning and Highways Committee. He had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02866/HOUSE in respect of a retrospective application for the erection of a two storey side extension at 8 Alexander Road, Thatcham.

David Pearson 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 justified. He recommended that the tense of the wording of the proposed condition one be amended to recognise that the application was retrospective.  Officers recommended the Committee grant conditional planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Emma Tompkins, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/ agent Representation

Ms Tompkins in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Town Council had expressed concern regarding the devaluation of property in the area. This was not her intention as it made no economic sense. Property values were not a planning issue.

·                    There were also concerns expressed regarding a terracing effect. Ms Tompkins reported that there was previously a single storey extension with a flat roof on the site which ended 30cm from the boundary on her property and on her neighbour’s property. Planning permission for the two storey extension was sought prior to moving into the property. When she employed an architect to draw plans, he recommended using existing foundations closer to the boundary line.

·                    A precedent for small gaps between properties had already been set by other houses on the road.

Questions from Members

Councillor Pamela Bale asked whether the Planning Authority had been consulted prior to construction. Ms Tompkins stated that she had been badly advised; she originally thought that the extension had been built as described in the planning permission. It was only when neighbours raised the issue that she realised it had not. The builder had not been aware of the issue as he had only seen the building plans prepared by the architect and not the plans submitted as part of the planning application.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that plan 102b showed a small wall between Ms Tompkins’ property and her neighbour. He enquired what had happened to that wall. Ms Tompkins could not confirm but believed it was now part of the garage.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if an objection had been submitted by the neighbour whose property abutted the applicant’s. Ms Tompkins confirmed it had not.

Councillor Richard Crumly raised a query regarding the neighbour’s extension. Ms Tompkins advised that there had already been a single storey garage on the site and an additional storey had been added.

Councillor Marigold Jacques asked whether the applicant had been aware of the neighbour’s extension when they purchased the property. Ms Tompkins advised she had not been aware however when she informed the neighbour of her intention to extend they agreed to build their extensions at the same time.

Member questions to Officers

Councillor Bridgman enquired whether there was anything the Committee should consider in relation to the retrospective application for the extension next door to the site. Dave Pearson advised that each application was capable of separate determination.

Debate

Councillor Quentin Webb expressed the opinion that the extension did not create a terracing effect as the ridge heights were different and one house was stepped back from the other. He stated that he saw no reason not to allow planning permission and proposed that the Committee accept the officers’ recommendation. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Chopping.

Councillor Crumly commented that he had considered the application afresh and accepted Councillor Webb’s view on the possible terracing effect to an extent but maintained his objection to the application.

Councillor Chopping confirmed that he had no issues with the application, but expressed the view that it was disappointing to see that 29 identical letters of objection were submitted regarding a relatively minor matter.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he had considered the impact of the extension on the street scene and considered that there was still subservience between properties.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Webb as seconded by Councillor Chopping to approve planning permission. 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 completed in accordance with amended plans relating to the rear gable end (to be provided).  

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

2. Within two months of the date of this permission, the parking and/or turning space on site shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be kept available for parking. 

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 (March 2012), 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:

1. This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2. This planning permission is granted in accordance with Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.