Agenda item

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 (4) by virtue of the fact that he had been acquainted with the applicant for a long time, he had been lobbied and was the Ward Member. Councillor Adrian Abbs had also been lobbied. As their interests were 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(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02126/FULD in respect of the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling to provide a five bedroom family home within the estate at Park House, West Woodhay, Newbury.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Robert McDonald, Parish Meeting representative and Duncan Hartley, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Masie Masiiwa 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 unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.         Paul Goddard apologised that there was no comment from the Highways Authority in the report. He confirmed that he had visited the property and concluded that there were acceptable sight lines so there was no objection subject to the comment in the update report.

5.         Debra Inston stated that the importance of Park House came from its attachment to West Woodhay House. Park House was at least 200 years old and while the original building had been altered there was surviving elements such as the chequered brickwork which was of interest. The extensions were sympathetic and many of the original features remained. The house contained evidential value regarding methods of construction and historical value through its connection to West Woodhay House. Consideration had been given to applying a condition to reuse the bricks however the proposed dwelling was not modest in comparison to the current property and there was enough heritage value to resist demolition.

6.         Mr Robert MacDonald in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                The house was not a museum; it was a mishmash of extensions and had lost the character of its former association with West Woodhay House.

·                The new house would be an attractive design and be a positive step towards enhancing the character of the area.

·                The new house would be larger and suitable for modern living. Although the footprint would increase by 80% the outbuildings would be consolidated.

·                The Committee had recently approved applications in respect of Haywards Green Farm which was out of keeping and a massive increase in footprint compared to the previous property on the site.

·                The house would be eco-friendly and reuse the bricks of the current house. The current house did not have suitable rooflines for solar panels.

7.         Councillor Tony Vickers questioned whether there really was no reason a young family would wish to live in the property. Mr Macdonald advised that the new property would be warm, reduce the carbon impact, address damp issues and have a layout suitable for modern living.

8.         Councillor James Cole requested confirmation that the current house could not accommodate solar panels. Mr Macdonald advised that more information was in the application.

9.         Councillor Hilary Cole remarked that the carbon efficiency argument could equally be applied to West Woodhay House and questioned why the Parish Meeting supported this application when they had objected so vociferously to the Haywards Green Farm application. Mr Macdonald responded that West Woodhay House was a Grade 1 listed property. Haywards Green Farm was out of keeping with the area due to its size, materials and the impact on the AONB.

10.      Councillor Abbs questioned the point regarding solar panels as he would have thought the south west and south east facing slopes of the current property would be ideal. Mr Macdonald advised that the proposed south facing roof of the new property would produce more energy.

11.      Mr Hartley in addressing the Committee made the following points:

·                There were no technical objections to the proposed development and the Parish Meeting supported the application.

·                The design submitted was only marginally different to a scheme submitted for pre-application advice from the case officer. Feedback on that scheme was that it was satisfactory because it was well designed and a footprint increase of up to 100% was acceptable. The volume increase of the property would be 110%. A letter had been circulated to the Committee to provide further explanation.

·                The judgement regarding the heritage impact was subjective. A heritage assessment had been submitted with the application which concluded that Park House had low significance as a non-designated heritage asset. The Conservation Officer concurred with much of the analysis in the assessment apart from the weight afforded to the house’s importance as a non-designated heritage asset.

·                The property’s green credentials would extend above and beyond existing building regulations.

·                There would be a minimal impact on the AONB because there would be no change to the curtilage of the property and the trees would be retained.

·                The loss of a non-designated heritage asset should be weighed against the quality of the replacement property and in this case the property would be of a high quality.

·                The applicant had considered the Local Planning Authority’s suggestion to extend the existing dwelling and after discussions with their architects had concluded that this option was not feasible.

12.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked officers whether they were allowed to consider the point regarding pre-application advice suggesting one conclusion when the recommendation was to refuse planning permission. Derek Carnegie advised that pre-application advice came heavily caveated and was an informal process. Sharon Armour advised that Members of the Committee who had seen the letter should disregard it as it was submitted within five days of the meeting

13.      Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the average three bedroom home was 85m² and asked what the property would be. Mr Hartley advised that he did not have that information to hand and the property volume would increase by 110%.

14.      Councillor Hilary Cole sought an explanation for the use of percentage increases to the property’s footprint when the Council’s policy was now to assess how the property would look in the plot. Mr Hartley advised that the case law cited in the committee report referred to percentage increases.

15.      Councillor Hilary Cole asked why it was not proposed to extend the property. Mr Hartley advised that it was not possible to create spaces suitable for modern living because of the mishmash internal layout.

16.      Councillor James Cole in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·                He was the Council’s Heritage Champion and did not want to save all properties.

·                The Committee Chairman had not been keen to see inside the property.

·                The property was damp and a poor quality. Many of the roof tiles were concrete and grey cement was interspersed with much of the brickwork. The only part of the property worth saving was the garage.

·                The Conservation Officer had argued that the property was distinct as a heritage asset; he questioned whether it was distinct in the way the Committee would like.

·                The property would sit better in the AONB, whose management board submitted no objections.

·                No one in the village had submitted objections.

·                He did not see how the new property would damage the area, especially if the materials were reused.

·                He did not usually like to see large replacement properties for houses in the countryside, but that was the trend. The property would not be too big and would support the Council’s carbon neutral aspirations.

17.      Councillor Abbs raised that the current property was 200 m² and questioned whether there was not scope in insulate the property internally in order to improve its environmental impact. Councillor James Coles advised that the current property had a strange internal layout with small rooms and corridors so this would not be possible.

18.      Councillor Hooker confirmed that he had seen the ground floor of the property. He questioned whether it was possible the property had been subjected to deliberate poor maintenance for some time. Councillor James Cole replied that some of the responsibility would fall to his family as the house had been part of the estate when it was acquired in 1880.

19.      Turning to questions to officers, Councillor Hilary sought clarification regarding the use of percentages to describe size increases. Derek Carnegie advised that the policy did not include guidance on percentage increases but they were a useful tool to gather a picture of whether an application would be acceptable.

20.      Councillor Abbs asked when Park House ceased to be in the ownership of Councillor James Cole’s family. Councillor James Cole advised that the estate was sold to the current owners in 1921.

21.      In commencing the debate, Councillor Tony Vickers stated he was persuaded by the Ward Member’s presentation and was concerned that the house could degrade further if action was not taken. The property was already empty. The design would be in sympathy with the area. Councillor Vickers reported that he had not attended the site visit but was familiar with the property as a frequent user of the District’s footpaths.

22.      Councillor Hilary Cole expressed the view that the considerations were finely balanced but the height would be excessive. She referred to policy CS14 and expressed the view that the proposed design was a pastiche of West Woodhay House; she would prefer a more innovative design. Although the environmentally friendly aspects had been emphasised during the Committee, she would expect any application to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes. Overall she did not like the application.

23.      Councillor Abbs expressed the view that in a finely balanced situation, the Committee who why not experts should be led by the professionals. He proposed that the Committee refuse planning permission.

24.      Councillor Howard Woollaston reported that he did not often disagree with Councillor Hilary Cole but on this occasion he felt the design was of high quality and sat well in the plot.

25.      Councillor Carolyne Culver expressed the view that the property would have a visual impact. While she commended the sustainability aspects, she felt that the building could be smaller and still an eco-home.

26.      Councillor Hilary Cole seconded the proposal to refuse planning permission.

27.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Abbs as seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole. At the vote the motion was carried using the Chairman’s casting vote.

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

Refusal Reasons

Informatives