Agenda item

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/03398/HOUSE in respect of a two storey and single storey extension at Winterley House, Kintbury.

2.         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 unacceptable and consequently officers recommended the Committee to refuse planning permission.  Derek Carnegie further added that a decision was currently awaited from the Planning Inspector on the earlier planning application and this was due very shortly.

3.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr M McNally and Mr Ian Lasseter, applicant/agent, and Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.         Mr McNally and Mr Lasseter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                They bought the house in 2008 because they had fallen in love with it, along with its setting and wanted to make it their family home for a long time.

·                At the time their three boys had been young children but they were now teenagers and consequently they needed more space, which was the reason for submitting the planning application.

·                The house was very pretty and dated back to the 1780s.  It was an l-shape when they bought it and they had since squared it off with a new façade made of high quality materials, which gave the impression that this extension was part of the original house.

·                Therefore they wanted to retain the high quality build by using old bricks and they were also intending to replace the modern garage.

·                The house was extended twice during the Victorian era, delisted in the 1980s and squared off in 2010.  Therefore it was not a symmetrical Georgian house and consequently a balanced judgement was required with regard to the harm this application would cause.

·                They considered that the extension was subservient to the existing dwelling.

·                There was no heritage imperative for the dwelling to be symmetrical.

·                The decision on the previous application was at appeal as stated by Derek Carnegie, but the decision was not expected for another three months, as they had only just received an acknowledgement from the Planning Inspector.

5.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked why they had submitted this planning application when the earlier one was still awaiting the appeal decision. Mr Lasseter advised that as they had made some changes to the earlier application, they had hoped it would be acceptable to the Committee.

6.         Councillor Anthony Pick enquired what evidence they possessed that showed the dwelling dated back to the 1780s.  Mr McNally explained that they had been told this by the previous owners and it was also referenced in various documents, as well as on the heritage gateway site.

7.         Councillor Pick further enquired whether a Heritage Impact Assessment had been undertaken and he was assured by Mr McNally that it had.  Mr McNally added that the dwelling had originally been a small farmhouse, which had been extended in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which was evident from the chimneys on the north side of the building.

8.         Councillor James Cole asked what percentage of the house was Georgian and was told that it was probably less than fifteen percent, with the rest being either Victorian or modern.

9.         Councillor Paul Bryant requested clarification as to which part of the house had comprised the l-shape when they had purchased it and Mr McNally pointed out on the plan that it had been the kitchen and dining room, with a single storey above the kitchen.

10.      Councillor Anthony Stansfeld in addressing the committee, as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                No objections had been received from Kintbury Parish Council.  However, the dwelling was actually situated in Inkpen and no objections had been received from Inkpen Parish Council either, which was unusual.

·                He had known the previous owners of the dwelling and considered that the house looked much better following the 2010 extension than it did previously.

·                There had been much discussion about the balance of the house and it was often the case with extensions that the roof sloped down on one side, which was often because applicants could not afford to extend both sides.  He also believed that the need for subservient extensions often made the original dwelling look terrible.

·                This house was not visible from the road and might be seen from the woods.

·                He was not concerned about the Planning Inspector’s decision and felt the Committee’s decision was more important.

·                He felt it was extraordinary that planning permission had been granted for the extension to the large mansion in West Woodhay and in comparison the extension for this house was an improvement and he had no objections to it.

11.      The Committee had no questions for Councillor Stansfeld.

12.      Councillor Bryant enquired what the definition in planning legislation was for a non-designated heritage site.  Derek Carnegie replied that Planning Officers had relied on the view of the Conservation Officer for both applications and she had outlined a number of concerns with them.  As the dwelling was tucked away, it might appear that there would be no harm from approving the application, but planners had a duty to protect Areas of Natural Beauty (AONB) in their entirety.  Consequently they would prefer to await the view of the Planning Inspector, who was an independent specialist and would evaluate the drawings before making a decision.

13.      Councillor Bryant noted that the non-subservience of the extension had been mentioned by officers and requested clarification on this.  Derek Carnegie explained that the roof of the two storey extension should be half a metre lower than the original dwelling and it was only one brick lower, which they did not consider was sufficient.  He added that this was why it would be beneficial to allow an independent expert to decide if it was acceptable.

14.      Councillor Pick asked if the requirement for appropriate materials to be used in the construction of the extension had been given sufficient weight in the officer’s report.  Derek Carnegie responded that in his view, the word of the applicant and the agent on this point were sufficient and the Council would also apply conditions to cover it.

15.      Councillor Hilary Cole noted that reference was made to Grade 3 listed buildings in the Council’s Core Strategy and that officers would have adhered to this.

16.      Councillor Jeff Beck asked why the lack of a response from the Archaeological Officer during the consultation period had not been followed up.  Derek Carnegie said that the comments received on the first application had been sufficient, so it had not been necessary to do so and nor did they have the resources for this.

17.      Councillor James Cole enquired whether the planning applications would have been approved if the building had not previously been Grade 3 listed.  Derek Carnegie assured him that they would still have taken advice from officers who had the knowledge and experience in this area.

18.      In considering the application, Councillor Garth Simpson noted that during the site visit, he had been in agreement with the Conservation Officer’s view that the extension was large and disruptive.  However, he had been impressed by the presentation given by Mr McNally and Mr Lasseter and he now considered that it was only the orangery and the office that were the disruptive elements of the proposed extension. Consequently, this extension was no different to the way the house had been extended over the centuries,

19.      Councillor Pick agreed with Councillor Simpson’s sentiments as it was evident that the dwelling had originally been a small Georgian cottage, which had changed over the centuries and his view was that the application should be considered on its merits.

20.      Councillor Beck said that he did not object to the application and he proposed that planning permission was granted.  This was seconded by Councillor Simpson.

21.      Councillor Pick added that the choice of materials would be critical.

22.      Councillor Hilary Cole opined with Councillor Simpson and noted that it was a classic example of a building being extended over the centuries and therefore, it was already compromised.  She understood the applicant’s need to accommodate a growing family but she felt they should have considered this when they purchased the property. In addition, as the earlier application was currently at appeal, she felt it would be foolish to approve it prior to receiving the Planning Inspector’s decision and if the Committee was minded to do so, she considered it should be referred up to the District Planning Committee.

23.      Councillor Bryant conjectured that the building was either listed or not listed and he could see the arguments on both sides.  The western side of the building was the most attractive and uncompromised and well screened.  However, he too was aware that the earlier planning application was awaiting the appeal decision and therefore he would not be supporting approval of this application.  He therefore proposed that it was deferred until the Planning Inspector’s decision had been received, as it might include useful information for the Committee to base its decision upon.

24.      Councillor James Cole remarked that he had also been going to propose a deferment and he agreed that a growing family was not the right reason to extend a building.  He was surprised the application had come before the Committee.  With the current building only compromising 15% of the original building, he would be minded to approve it, but in the current circumstance, it made more sense to defer it.

25.      Councillor Dennis Benneyworth agreed with Councillor Hilary Cole.  He had been impressed by the extension undertaken by the applicant in 2010 but he was swayed by the Conservation Officer’s argument and felt it was wise to defer it.

26.      Councillor Adrian Edwards added that he had been impressed with the building during the site visit and noted there were a considerable number of buildings in Newbury that were historic, and although not listed, should be preserved. He therefore considered that this building should be preserved and he agreed with the Conservation Officer that the proposed extension would materially harm the building.

27.      Councillor Beck said that having heard the views of other Committee Members he wished to withdraw his earlier proposal and agreed that the decision on the application should be deferred but he asked for the redlines to be reviewed.  Derek Carnegie assured him that they would be.

28.      Councillor Hilary Cole seconded the proposal to defer the decision until after the Planning Inspector’s decision was received.

29.      The Chairman noted that the Constitution allowed for a previous proposal to be withdrawn and he invited the Committee to vote on the proposal made by Councillor Bryant and seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole to defer the application.  At the vote, six Members voted in favour of the proposal, one Member voted against it and there was one abstention.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to defer the decision on the planning permission until the decision had been received from the Planning Inspector.

The Chairman suspended the meeting at 7.30pm.