Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3 by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and their Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Beck had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Vickers had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/00411/REM in respect of a reserve matters application for a new dwelling with integral garage of appeal reference APP/W0340/W/17/3191372 (17/01808/OUTD). Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale at garden land at 5 Normay Rise, Newbury.

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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers firmly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Diane Hill and Mr Kevan Williams, objectors, and Mr Robert Megson, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Ms Hill and Mr Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms Hill was speaking on behalf of her mother who lived adjacent to the site.

·         Although the principle of the application had been authorised through appeal, this application had not. The Committee were asked to reject the application due to its form and scale which would lead to a cramped overdevelopment of the site.

·         The proposed dwelling would overhang the property boundary.

·         The proximity of the property at 21m would impact on Ms Hill’s mother’s privacy and if the Committee were minded to approve the application they should change the application to be a bungalow.

·         Mr Williams had lived adjacent to the site for 1977.

·         The proposed design was not in-keeping with the neo-Georgian appearance of the rest of the area which had originally been known as the Battledean Estate.

·         The position of the proposed dwelling was one metre forward of the established building line.

·         Newbury Town Council’s representations regarding the application were submitted ahead of the deadline and therefore would not have taken all public views into account.

5.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked Ms Hill if she was aware that the Council’s policy allowed a 21m gap between properties. Ms Hill advised that she was aware and that she knew the policy had been deemed controversial.

6.    Councillor Vickers asked if Mr Williams agreed that Normay Rise did not have a clear building line. Mr Williams responded that his neighbour had not been permitted by the Council to extend their property to the front because of the building line.

7.    Councillor Adrian Abbs asked how Ms Hill knew the distance between the properties would be 21m. Ms Hill advised that she had scaled up the plans.

8.    Councillor Phil Barnett stated that the area was known for being flooded and he asked how the area was affected in 2007. Mr Williams reported that the bottom of the road was in a flood zone and in his opinion 5 Normay Rise would be more susceptible to flooding upon construction of the house.

9.    Mr Megson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The previous application had been recommended for approval by officers but the Committee had refused the application. At appeal the Planning Inspector had granted the appeal subject to conditions.

·         A 21m privacy distance usually referred to a back-to-back distance whereas the case in this application was that the properties would be at an angle to each other.

·         No objections had been submitted by statutory consultees.

10.Councillor James Cole asked whether Mr Megson was disputing that the distance was 21m. Mr Megson responded that the distance between the two properties would be 21m however this was at an angle and the Council’s policy specified that was the minimum distance for houses back to back.

11.Councillor Abbs asked what the distance would be from the front of the property to a property opposite. Mr Megson advised that the property would face Willowmead Close.

12.Councillor Carolyne Culver asked about the position of the bathroom window. Mr Megson replied that usually a condition would be applied to ensure the bathroom window was non-opening and obscure glass.

13.Councillor Vickers in addressing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         The proposed design was not in-keeping with the neo-Georgian estate.

·         The size of the proposed dwelling was not suitable.

·         The site was suitable for development but the application was not appropriate.

·         The applicant had advised that they would live in the property and so the development would be exempt from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Councillor Vickers felt that the system might be easy to manipulate.

14.Turning to questions to officers, Derek Carnegie was invited to respond to the comment about CIL. He advised that matters regarding CIL were not relevant in determining the planning application.

15.Councillor Abbs asked whether the 21m distance posed a privacy issue. Derek Carnegie advised that the site was in a close knit estate and the impact was not so significant that it would stand up as a reason to refuse the application should the matter go to appeal.

16.Councillor Hilary Cole wished to clarify that previously the Committee had refused the application against officer recommendation. Derek Carnegie confirmed this was correct.

17.Councillor Jeff Beck asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that an hours of work condition be applied.

18.In response to a question from Councillor Culver, Derek Carnegie confirmed that the bathroom window would be non-opening.

19.Councillor Abbs asked whether there was an established building line in the area. Derek Carnegie advised there was no clearly defined line and as large front gardens were common in the area a property being brought forward by 1m would not have a significant impact.

20.Councillor James Cole asked whether the difference in design of the proposed dwelling to its neighbours would matter to a Planning Inspector at appeal. Derek Carnegie advised that the issue had not been raised in the appeal decision letter for the previous application and he did not see the matter as a reason to refuse the application.

21.Councillor Abbs, returning to the matter of the building line, asked whether a precedent had been set in the case cited by the objector. Derek Carnegie stated that planning guidance changed regularly and in his professional opinion it would not be appropriate or enforceable to apply a building line to the area.

22.Councillor Culver enquired upon the Tree Officer’s opinion that conditions 6 and 7 could not be discharged. Derek Carnegie confirmed that the matter would be resolved by officers.

23.Councillor Abbs asked whether the Tree Officer had been involved with the application prior to the removal of the diseased oak tree on the site. Derek Carnegie confirmed that the Tree Officer had been involved throughout the application.

24.In commencing the debate Councillor Vickers expressed the view that the proposal was not in-keeping with the design of the area and was too big for the plot. While the Planning Inspector had confirmed that a dwelling could be developed on the plot this was not the right proposal. Councillor Vickers proposed that the Committee reject the officer’s recommendation and instead refuse planning permission. Councillor Beck seconded the proposal.

25.Councillor Barnett expressed the view that the development was too large and would stand out whereas a smaller development might be acceptable.

26.Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the Committee was in a difficult position but the application allowed by the Planning Inspector had been in outline there had been no indication of its form or size. The design was insensitive to the rest of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework guided Planning Authorities to consider design and refusal would be legitimate on the grounds that it was not in-keeping.

27.Councillor James Cole stated that the application should be refused because it was too big but there should be a house on the site.

28.Derek Carnegie warned the Committee that should they refuse planning permission and the decision was appealed the Planning Inspector might allow the appeal and the Council could be liable for costs.

29.Councillor Claire Rowles expressed the view that the house would look crammed in. Derek Carnegie advised that properties in the area were close-knit.

30.Councillor Vickers agreed that the property would look crammed in to the plot whereas the rest of the estate was spacious with properties set back from the road.

The Chairman invited the committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Vickers as seconded by councillor Beck. At the vote the motion was carried with three abstentions.

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

Reason

The proposed dwelling is too large for the plot of land and the design does not relate to or respect the Neo-Georgian style of the rest of the immediate neighbourhood. The proposal does not respect the established building line of adjacent properties and the scale of the proposal will result in an adverse impact on the privacy and the amenities of neighbouring properties.