Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and (2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Howard Woollaston had also been lobbied on the matter. 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/01881/HOUSE in respect of a two storey side and single storey rear extension, with proposed loft to be connected into existing converted loft space at 89 Enborne Road, Newbury.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Simon Moffat, objector, and Councillor Andy Moore, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by Councillor Moore due to the impact on the neighbour’s privacy.  The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.     Simon Moffat in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The planning application had been shown by his neighbour had originally only had two windows on the ground floor and one on the first floor. 

·         However the door that had since been inserted at the side of the extension and was referred to in the officer’s report had been removed, although the window on the first floor remained.

·         Following the construction of the outbuilding in 2018, they had had to install blinds at the back of their house as they were completely overlooked.

5.     Councillor Adrian Abbs enquired as to when they had found out about the installation of the side door and Mr Moffat replied that they had returned from holiday to find the extension being built, which included a side door.  They had raised this with the neighbour who had showed then the plans, but these were different from the original plans.

6.     Councillor Andy Moore in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had called the planning application in and, as he was a Member of the Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee, he had advised them then that he was likely to do so.  This was why there had been no one from the Town Council to make representations on the item.

·         He had called the application in following representations from Mr Moffat about overlooking of his garden and property.

·         There was a history of overlooking from the earlier construction of an outbuilding and a review of enforcement action at the property had indicated the applicant was prepared to submit plans and then change them.  Therefore he had considered that calling in the application would help discourage the applicant from doing this again.

·         He would urge the applicant to build the extension in accordance with the agreed plans and he accepted that it could now be approved.

7.     Councillor Hilary Cole queried why the matter had been brought to Committee as it was a neighbour dispute and not a planning matter and as there were no issues with overlooking, she proposed the Committee should accept the officer’s recommendation for approval.

8.     Councillor Phil Barnett commented that he had originally thought this was a straight forward case involving the construction of an extension.  However, when he visited the rear of the site and had seen the impact the au pair accommodation had had on the neighbouring property, he had appreciated the impact changes made during the construction process could have on neighbours. He recognised that if the extension had already been completed the Committee would not be discussing it and it would be difficult to refuse it from a planning perspective but he felt the Committee should be looking at this sort of planning application.

9.     Councillor Jeff Cant noted he did not understand why the item had been called in and he supported the recommendation.

10.  Councillor Abbs added that he was glad the application had been called in as it helped to highlight the fact that people needed to follow the planning process.

11.  Councillor Tony Vickers confirmed that Ward Members have the right to call in planning applications and all that was required was the Chairman’s permission to do so.  Furthermore, if the Chairman had agreed to it being called in, there must have been a good reason for doing so.  He also agreed that it sent out a message to applicants that they should be following the planning processes even for small applications.

12.  The Chairman invited members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cole and seconded by Councillor Cant and at the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons:

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 drawing number 16107/PLR002 received on 15 July 2019 and 16107/PLR001 Rev A received on 3 September 2019.

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

3.    The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms. Where stated that materials shall match the existing, those materials shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials respond to local character and appearance. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD (Part 2, June 2006), and House Extensions SPG 04/2 (July 2004).

4.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows or doors which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and/or C of that Order shall be constructed on the western side elevation of the dwelling, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjacent properties/land, in the interests of safeguarding the privacy of the neighbouring occupants. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD (2006) and House Extensions SPG (July 2004).