To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. & Parish: 18/02930/HOUSE - Purley Lodge Cottage, Purley on Thames, Reading

Proposal:

Part single storey, part two storey rear extension to the existing single family dwelling house

Location:

Purley Lodge Cottage, Purley Lane, Purley on Thames, Reading. RG8 8AT

Applicant:

Mr Newman and Ms Linning

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorise to refuse planning permission

 

 

Minutes:

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he owned farmland adjacent to the site but he considered that the application had no bearing on his property. 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(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/02930/HOUSE in respect of a proposed part single storey, part two storey rear extension to the existing single family dwelling house at Purley Lodge Cottage, Purley Lane, Purley.

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 unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Fred Guttfield, applicant/ agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/ agent Representation

Mr Guttfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The extension had been sensitively designed to convert an unattractive outbuilding.

·                     The house was not in a conservation area, a listed building or in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·                     No objections had been raised by neighbours or statutory consultees. There had been three letters of support.

·                     The applicant had grown up in Purley.

·                     The extension would be subservient to the main house as it had a lower ridge height and was set back; Mr Guttfield refuted that the proposal was dominant and bulky.

·                     Extensions had been permitted in the area which has more of an impact.

·                     Materials would be used which reflected the edge of village location.

·                     The officers’ recommendation contradicted pre-application advice provided by the Planning Authority.

Questions from Members

Councillor Richard Crumly asked why timber cladding was proposed to create a barn like appearance when in his view brick would be more attractive. Mr Guttfield advised that different materials would reflect the edge of village location and similar nearby properties.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if the roof pitch would be the same as the main house. Mr Guttfield advised that they were similar but heights had been restricted as far as possible and it had been sought to tie in eaves with the existing house.

Councillor Graham Bridgman questioned the statement that the extension would replace an unattractive outbuilding given that it could not be seen from the road at present but the extension would be visible.

Ward Member representation

Councillor Tim Metcalfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     His fellow Ward Member, Councillor Rick Jones, had sent apologies because he lived adjacent to the site and therefore had a prejudicial interest.

·                     No objections had been raised with Councillor Metcalfe directly.

·                     The applicant had queried why the recommendation differed from the pre application advice and officers had advised that they could not account for other parts of the Council raising objections.

·                     The proposed extension was at an angle and if it had been square to the road the impact might not have been so detrimental.

·                     The extension would improve the house, was of a fun design and would enable the kitchen to be relocated.

Questions from Members

Councillor Alan Law sought clarification on who had called the application to the Committee. Councillor Metcalfe confirmed that it was himself due to the unusual circumstances of the application.

Member questions to Officers

Councillor Chopping asked if preservation of views was a planning matter. Dave Pearson advised that the Committee will have been advised in the past that there was no right to a view from a house but impact on amenity and the character of the area was a material consideration.

The Chairman invited Dave Pearson to make a comment regarding the pre-application advice. Dave Pearson explained that officers had given a positive response in their pre-application advice but this did not mean that planning permission was granted. In this case, the case officer had taken a different view. He confirmed that the officers put forward a strong recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Debate

Councillor Webb stated that he had known the former resident of the property and knew the area well. He had some reservations about the application and while he could see the need for the extension, he was not satisfied with the proposal.

Councillor Crumly noted that the house next door had a large extension which might be judged to be incongruous. He understood why the owner sought to extend the property and was not certain that the Committee should block this legitimate aspiration. The situation with the pre-application advice demonstrated that it was a balanced situation. In conclusion he was prepared to support the application.

Councillor Bridgman had likewise considered the extension of the house next door. It might have been possible to extend straight out the back of the house to offer continuity. He supported Councillor Webb’s views.

Councillor Marigold Jacques expressed the view that the applicant was a hostage to fortune in that they had complied with advice but resulted in a recommendation to refuse. She advised that so long as the bridleway was not impacted she would support the application.

Councillor Tony Linden stated that a balanced view must be taken and he considered that the harm of the extension on local amenity was marginal.

Councillor Pamela Bale noted that an application to extend the house was refused in 2018. Dave Pearson clarified that the pre-application advice was sought in respect of that application.

Councillor Chopping stated that he did not like the proposed cladding and he thought the roof pitch was unbalanced but neither point was a reason for refusal. There had been no objections from neighbours and three letters of support which was telling. He did not agree that the proposal was bulky or dominant and proposed that the Committee decline the officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission. Councillor Crumly seconded the proposal.

Councillors Chopping and Crumly accepted conditions recommended by Dave Pearson in respect of the commencement of the development, materials, provision of the parking spaces, hours of work and a construction management plan.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal which at the vote was carried with one abstention.

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 and other documents listed below:

(i) Drawing No 051 P SL received on 5th November 2018;

(ii) Drawing No 051 P SP received on 5th November 2018;

(iii) Drawing No 051 P 02 received on 5th November 2018;

(iv) Drawing No 051 P EL 1 2 received on 5th November 2018;

(v) Drawing No 051 P EL 3 4 received on 5th November 2018;

(vi) Drawing No 051 P EL 5 received on 5th November 2018;

(vii) Drawing No 051 P 00 Rev A received on 5th November 2018;

(viii) Drawing NO 051 P 01 received on 5th November 2018;

(ix) Householder Planning Application Design and Access Statement October 2018 prepared by Guttfield Architecture received on 5th November 2018;

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

3. No development shall take place above ground level until samples, and an  accompanying schedule, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension) and hard surfaced areas hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

4. The extension hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking spaces shown on Drawing No 051 P 00 Rev A received on 5th November 2018 have been provided. The parking and 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, and to prevent parking on the adjacent bridleway. 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 P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006-2016).

5. 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) and Policy OVS5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

6. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide for:

(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

(d) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

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), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies OVS5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and the Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006). The decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, South East Plan 2006-2026, West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted 1998, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991-2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, Supplementary Planning Document; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

ADPP1 ADPP4 CS13 CS14 CS16 CS17 CS18 CS19 C1 P1

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary. If you require further information on this decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

INFORMATIVES:

1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2 The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met. A fee is required for an application to discharge conditions.

3 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.

4 The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

5 The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

6 The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not in any way allow the Public Right of Way to be obstructed at any time during the course of the development.

Supporting documents: