Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application No. 18/03268/FULD in respect of the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and garage and replacement with two semi-detached dwellings and also to lift and thin the crown of a TPO within the garden.

The Planning Officer stated that this application was for the construction of a pair of semi-detached properties over the footprint of the existing dwelling. It was noted that Clairewood was set back from the highway due to a long front garden. The proposal included the creation of a new vehicular access and parking area with both hard and soft landscaping at the front. The oak tree, protected by a Tree Preservation Order, would be lifted and thinned as part of the proposal and would be entirely located within the garden space for Plot 1.

The proposed dwellings would be two storey, 5 bed dwellings. The front elevation would be have two bay windows with gable ends that would be oak framed. Windows on the rear elevation would be larger to allow for daylight to enter the dwellings. Officers had had concerns about the height and building line and subsequently amended plans had been received to show an alteration to the room form alongside setting back the dwellings in line with the established building line and additional landscaping within the front garden.

The site was within the Settlement Boundary and was within the AONB but it was felt that the principle of development was acceptable. Concerns had been raised by neighbours in respect of overlooking from the second floor windows in the side elevation of both dwellings. However, these would be obscure glazed and the Planning Officer felt that they would not be overbearing. The parking allocation complied with new residential parking standards and Highways had raised no objections.

The Update Report set out the Parish Council’s response to the amended plans and the fact that two further letters of objection had been received. It was noted that there had been no reported accidents in the vicinity of this site over the last five years. The Officer recommendation was therefore for approval of the application.

The Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Graham Pask, advised that the Chair of the Parish Council had thought that she had been registered to speak on this application. He therefore proposed to suspend Standing Orders to allow Mrs Ruth Cottingham to speak with the normal five minute time limit to apply.  This was agreed by the Committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, Mr Phil Stride, objector, and Mr Roger Scully, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation:

Mrs Ruth Cottingham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mrs Cottingham stated that the Parish Council objected to this application as it was felt to be over ambitious and out of keeping with the immediate neighbourhood. The Village Design Statement discouraged the building of three storey dwellings as being out of keeping with the general neighbourhood.

·                     The two demi-detached three storey dwellings would be higher than both the two storey neighbouring houses.

·                     The proposed development would not harmonise with the existing spacious layout in this part of the village and would therefore constitute over development. It would also block views of the wood from the street scene.

·                     In respect of parking and highway safety the houses could possibly mean that there would be up to ten additional vehicles when the number of bedrooms within the dwellings were taken into account. She therefore felt that six car parking spaces were insufficient and would not allow for visitor parking. There was a risk that this would force vehicles to park on the bend of the road which would be dangerous.

·                     Mrs Cottingham felt that the window on the first floor in the ensuite bathroom should be non-opening as well as obscured glass.

·                     Hermitage Parish Council would like to see the full protection of the TOP oak tree.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Graham Pask asked if the Village Design Statement had been approved by West Berkshire Council. Mrs. Cottingham confirmed that it had been approved some time ago.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that concerns had been raised about the less than desirable garden space for Plot 1 due to the oak tree and woodland to the rear of the plot. However, there was reference in the report to amenity space and that for Plot 1 the amendments at the rear of the garden created sufficient quality amenity space which could accommodate garden features such as a washing line or sitting area and this would therefore not warrant refusal. Mrs. Cottingham responded that children needed a place to play and sufficient space was required to hang out washing etc. This could be limited if a shed was placed in the garden.

Councillor Bridgman queried what was meant by full protection for the TPO. Mrs. Cottingham said that the Parish Council had wanted ownership of the trees but the Tree Officer would not allow that.

Objector Representation:

Mr Phil Stride in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mr Stride was representing all of the objectors. Those who had made representations did not object to the development of the site as such but they were against a bungalow being replaced by two three-storey dwellings. This would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the plot and intensification of the use.

·                     There were no other semi-detached dwellings in the vicinity of the site and the massing and height was an issue as it would mean that there would be a loss of the woodland views.

·                     Two dwellings with five bedrooms in each property would mean that there would be more people than in a single dwelling. This would also increase the number of cars using the site and cars would regularly have to park on the road. Indeed on the day of the site visit when cars had been parked on the road this had demonstrated what could possibly happen in relation to parking. Members had only been on site for 30 minutes but this could be a daily occurrence.

·                     The report stated that the overall design was considered on balance to comply with policy but the design was contrary to the Village Design Statement.

·                     The rear elevation of the properties had been designed with large areas of glass (47%) and consequently there would be significant overlooking of adjacent properties and gardens.

·                     The letter dated 28^th January 2019 had not included reasons why a recommendation for refusal had been changed to one of approval when considering the current application and in particular the comments made by the Tree Officer.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Marigold Jacques noted that mention had been made that a large area of the rear elevation of the properties would be glazed. However, she had noted at the site visit that the adjacent property had a balcony at the second floor level which was glazed and she questioned whether this could also be construed as being intrusive. Mr Stride responded that his area of glazing was only 27% which was significantly different than that which was proposed at 47%.

Applicant/Agent Representation:

Mr Roger Skully in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mr Skully had confirmed that he had reviewed the report and was pleased to see that the recommendation was one of approval as he had worked closely with Officers to ensure that the proposed development was acceptable. He did recognise the concerns raised by the objectors.

·                     In respect of the design and in particular the height and width and the effect on woodland views Mr Skully confirmed that the footprint had been reduced which would enable views of the woodland area. There was a mix of designs in the surrounding area and he said that whilst the proposed dwellings were high the roof form had been changed to a hip ridge so that it was not out of character. The site was within the AONB and therefore the design of the dwellings had been considered in order that it was sensitive to the immediate area.

·                     The single side window was a bathroom window and would therefore be obscure glazed to reduce overlooking.

·                     The rear garden space was well in excess of the minimum requirement for amenity space.

·                     In respect of the oak tree and the TPO a shadow survey had been undertaken and it was proposed to lift and thin the tree which would reduce the need for future pruning work.

·                     Any loss of privacy would be minimised by boundary fencing.

·                     In terms of parking this met the standard of three spaces per dwelling and there would be a soft on site turning space which would mean that there would be little difference from the current situation.

·                     Soft landscaping would be provided at the front of the site.

·                     Mr Skully confirmed that he had worked closely with Officers to alleviate any concerns which had been raised by the local authority, parish council and local residents.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the location plan and he assumed that the red line ended at the edge of the pavement. Mr Skully confirmed that that was the case. Councillor Bridgman referred to the Village Design Statement and the fact that the Parish Council had stated that it discouraged three storey dwellings. He noted that Mr Skully had mentioned that it complied with the VDS and that the design minimised the impact of the three storey element due to the fact that the eaves were at a two storey level but the fact was that this was an habitable space in the roof. The properties either side could also convert their roof space but the roof line would not be so high. Mr Skully responded that the constraints of the site dictated the design. The footprint was square which led to the natural height of the roof.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Quentin Webb in addressing the Committee made the following comments:

·                     Councillor Webb had not called in the application to the Committee but he did have reservations as it was not in keeping with the street scene. He was not keen on the velux windows and he felt that the redesign did not work as it was too wide and bulky and would compromise the view to the woodland.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Graham Bridgman asked the Highways Officer to comment on the concerns raised in relation to parking. Gareth Dowding confirmed that the development fully complied with policy in relation to parking which included visitor parking. There were no restrictions on the road in relation to parking and it that did become a regular occurrence then that could be looked at separately. The Planning Officer confirmed that the parking standards were fairly new and the proposed application was in compliance with the NPPF.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that the Officer report stated that a three bedroom dwelling was expected to provide a minimum of 100sq.m. of amenity space. He therefore queried what the relationship was between the number of bedrooms and the amenity space. The Planning Officer clarified that one or two bedroom properties required a minimum of 70sq.m. amenity space and three bedrooms or more required a minimum of 100sq.m.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked whether the footprint had been reduced and whether the floor height was higher than the existing. Also how much steeper was the pitch of the roof to neighbouring properties. The Planning Officer confirmed that the footprint was pretty much identical to the existing. The ground levels had not been a particular concern but it was noted that there was a gentle slope to the land. He did not know the exact angle of the pitch of the roof but he felt that it would be in the region of 45°.

Councillor Marigold Jacques referred to the top of page 55 of the agenda and the overshadowing of the oak tree. The amenity space in Plot 1 would be reduced and she queried whether the condition to restrict permitted development rights would apply to both plots. The Planning Officer confirmed that the condition would apply to both properties but it was necessary to give reasons to withdraw Permitted Development Rights. Permitted Development Rights for a garden was up to 50% ground coverage but the condition did give the local authority an element of control.

Debate:

Councillor Graham Bridgman confirmed that he had no issues with the amenity space, the width of the building, parking or the TPO but he did have concerns in respect of the height of the properties. They would be too tall in relation to the surrounding plots and would be contrary to the Village Design Statement. The properties would be 0.8m higher than the neighbouring property on one side and 1.5m higher than that on the other side.

Councillor Emma Webster felt that the hip design brought character to the design and it would sit well within the area. She proposed support of the Officer Recommendation for approval and this was seconded by Councillor Rob Denton-Powell.

Councillor Rob Denton-Powell stated that he had been raised in a village and it was necessary to have a diversity of housing, particularly to support large families.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe felt that this proposal was more acceptable than the previous one. However, he agreed that the height was a concern and it seemed out of character with the adjacent properties but there was a diversity of housing along the road.

Councillor Sheila Ellison referred to the view from the front of the site where there did not seem to be much grassed area. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was proposed that there would be an element of tree planting to the front of the site. He confirmed that there was a condition in respect of landscaping which included hard surfacing.

Councillor Richard Somner felt that the height of the roof had been dictated by the fact that it was designed for living accommodation. He felt that it was not necessary to cram in extra bedrooms as it made the development too tall.

The proposal to accept the Officer Recommendation for approval was put to the vote and there were four votes for and four votes against. The Chairman had the casting vote and proposed refusal of the application due to the height of the building and this was seconded by Councillor Quentin Webb.

Councillor Emma Webster said that if the issue was the additional 1.5m in height she asked if there was anything that could be done to bring it down e.g. build it lower and whether that could be covered off in a condition. The Planning Officer advised that that would constitute a change to the application and it would need to come back to Committee for a decision.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and agreed with the Chairman’s casting vote.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    Clairewood is located within the defined settlement boundary of Hermitage, a Service Village within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which according to Core Strategy Policy ADPP1 has some limited development potential.  According to the NPPF, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, of which settlement character plays an important role.  Core Strategy Policy CS14 states that new development must demonstrate high quality design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area.  Policy CS19 states that particular regard will be given to the sensitivity of the area to change, and to ensuring new development is appropriate in terms of its location, scale and design in context to the existing settlement form, pattern and character.  According to Policy C1 of the HSA DPD, planning permission will not be granted where a proposal harms or undermines the existing relationship of the settlement with open countryside, and where it does not contribute to the character and distinctiveness of a rural area, including the natural beauty of the AONB.

The existing dwellings along this section of Hampstead Norreys Road are predominately of two storey scale, set within sizeable plots, following an established building line with properties fronting onto the highway and set back from it.  The existing pattern of development with spacious layouts contributes to the semi-rural character of Hermitage.  There are currently views from the street to the woodland of the countryside beyond.

The proposed semi-detached pair would appear as one large dwelling within the plot fronting the highway. The semi-detached pair would be approximately 14.5 metres wide, 12.5 metres deep and 9.1 metres high.  The ridge line would be higher than both its immediate neighbours; its three storey scale would be apparent from the street, and appear out of scale with neighbouring properties.  Overall, the scale, height, mass/bulk, and design of the proposed dwellings is such that the development would be an incongruous addition to the street scene, would detract from the spacious character of the area, and thereby harm the character and appearance of the area.

2.    The application therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C1 and C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2014-19, the Council's adopted Quality Design SPD (2006), and the Hermitage Village Design Statement (2004).