Agenda item

(Councillor Vickers had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/00806/HOUSE in respect of a three storey side extension and new porch at 24 Donnington Square, 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 recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Charlotte Hawkins and Mr David Peacock, objectors, and Mr Gareth Davies, applicant, and Mr Matt Taylor, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Mrs Hawkins and Mr Peacock in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The extension did not mirror the extension of the adjoining property.

·         No conservation report had been undertaken.

·         It did not enhance the appearance of the area.

·         There would be a loss of the open aspect to the front Mrs Hawkins’ property. It was already overshadowed and the impact would increase if the application was allowed.

·         Donnington Square was its own conservation area.

·         Comments from the Newbury Society had been misrepresented.

5.    Councillor Jeff Beck stated that Ms Hawkins had provided a report written by Harrison Duckett Associates (HDA) which she mentioned at the site visit but noted it was not referenced in the update report. Ms Hawkins responded that the case officer had advised that the report might not be circulated to the Committee which is why she sent it on.

6.    Councillor Phil Barnett asked how the extension of number 25 was different to the proposal. Ms Hawkins advised that it was narrower and had a different roof.

7.    Councillor Abbs asked how much additional overshadowing would be caused by the proposed extension. Ms Hawkins responded that it would be around 30 minutes in the morning however the modelling provided by the applicant only showed 2 hour blocks.

8.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether the applicant had discussed the plans with Ms Hawkins. She responded that they had after the plans were submitted.

9.    Councillor Carolyne Culver asked what width the extension would be versus the existing extension at number 25. Ms Hawkins advised that 25’s extension was 2.5m whereas number 24 proposed a 3.6m extension.

10.Mr Davies and Mr Taylor in addressing the Committee made the following points:

·         Mr Davies planned to live in the property and wanted to make space for his family.

·         He recognised the historic importance of Donnington Square and wanted to improve the street scene.

·         The extension would be 10cm narrower and 2.5m shorter than the extension of 25 Donnington Square.

·         Ten objections had been submitted in respect of the original application. Only two objections remained in respect of the revised plans.

·         The new extension would be visually indifferent to the extension at 25 Donnington Square.

·         The additional overshadowing on neighbours at number 23 would be minimal and occur in the early hours of the Winter.

11.Councillor Abbs enquired why the 23’s conservatory was not shown on the shadow study and how much additional time the property would be in shadow. Mr Taylor responded that the overshadowing impact of the proposal was immaterial and it could not be described in time; the diagrams would need to be referred to.

12.Councillor Rowles noted that the additional height might not have a significant impact but the additional width would and asked if it would equate to 30 minutes. Mr Taylor advised that the extension would be set back from the front of the house and was not overly wide and would make a minor difference to the overshadowing already caused by the house.

13.Councillor Beck asked whether the applicant was aware of the HDA report Ms Hawkins had provided to him and the case officer. Mr Taylor advised that he was aware but it was not on the website.

14.Councillor Beck expressed frustration that the HDA report had not been included as part of the update report. Derek Carnegie offered reassurance that the case officer had taken into account the report.

15.Councillor Clive Hooker proposed deferral of the decision until all Members had seen a copy of the report. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers.

16.Councillor James Cole stated that as the Council’s Heritage Champion he was disappointed not to see much mention of heritage issues in the report. Derek Carnegie reported that a significant comment was included on page 64 of the agenda.

17.Councillor Abbs made a query about rear access to the garden; Derek Carnegie confirmed this was not a planning issue. Councillor Hilary Cole advised this matter was discussed at the site visit.

18.Councillor Vickers expressed the view that the application should include a Heritage Assessment.

19.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on his proposal as seconded by Councillor Vickers to defer the application. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the decision be deferred.

Following the vote Councillor Barnett expressed the view that Mr Peacock, who represented the Newbury Society, should be permitted to speak in a distinct group as a statutory consultee, rather than share the time with the other objector. (Post meeting note: The Newbury Society were not a statutory consultee and the Council’s Constitution does not offer statutory consultees their own five minute slot to address the Committee; they would be expected to share their time with other speakers in their category.)