Agenda item

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 19/02150/HOUSE in respect of an application for an annexe to the Old Coach House, Bath Road, Speen.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Purton, applicant’s brother, and Mr Antony Staig, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

4.         Mr Purton and Mr Staig in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                The applicant’s opinion differed to the case officer in respect of the effect on the rural character of the area, effect on the host property and the potential for the accommodation to be self-contained.

·                There was no intention to make the annexe self-contained; it would be linked to the house and garden and be used by the applicant’s family or carers. The applicant was willing to sign a legal agreement to provide assurance to the Council regarding the occupancy.

·                The annexe would be subservient to and match the main house.

·                The annexe would infill between existing buildings and would not be visible form the highway.

·                No objections had been submitted.

·                Mr Purton explained that the applicant was his sister. She was terminally ill and the annexe would offer accommodation to him and his family so they could move in to help care for her.

5.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked how access to the garages would be maintained as the construction of the annexe would make the corner even tighter. Mr Staig advised that some shrubbery would be removed. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Members could not consider the applicant’s need in the planning determination.

6.         Councillor James Cole asked whether the prospect of a legal agreement had been discussed with officers. Mr Staig reported that he had been advised the matter might be irrelevant in planning terms.

7.         Mr Purton responded to a query from Councillor Carolyne Culver regarding the location of bedrooms on the plans.

8.         It was noted that neither of the Ward Members were present to address the Committee. Councillor Culver reported the Councillor Steve Masters have called in the application due to the difference in opinion between the applicant and case officer but was agnostic regarding the outcome.

9.         Councillor Clive Hooker asked whether there would be any implications caused by multiple occupancy. Derek Carnegie advised the Committee that the Old Coach House was already a large property with four bedrooms and the annexe would provide two more. This had the effect of creating accommodation which would be capable of forming a community and there was unease about what this could lead to, however the case officer’s judgement was finely balanced.

10.      Councillor Adrian Abbs asked whether Members could be sure there would be no overlooking once foliage was removed to allow access to the garages. Derek Carnegie expressed the view that there may be no need to remove foliage and that this matter was not a determining factor on the overall recommendation. Councillor Abbs sought to clarify that the recommendation was borderline. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this was not a clear cut case.

11.      Councillor James Cole enquired whether there was any value in pursuing a legal agreement. Derek Carnegie confirmed that a planning condition could be applied to the permission but this would not offer long term restrictions. This was also not a determining factor. Sharon Armour advised that the Local Planning Authority were not permitted to pursue a Section 106 agreement or a restriction on the property’s title when a planning condition was achievable and more proportionate.

12.      Councillor Culver asked why the Local Planning Authority should care whether the two dwellings were separated. Derek Carnegie advised that the case officer believed the property’s best use was as a single unit.

13.      It was noted that the annexe included a kitchen.

14.      Councillor Abbs asked whether a problem could be forthcoming if applications were submitted to convert the garages outside the red line of the application. Derek Carnegie advised that the Local Planning Authority could not speculate and must consider the application as submitted.

15.      Councillor Hilary Cole quoted the Council’s Policy CS14. She stated that in her opinion the proposed design would create a linear structure which would detract from the architecture of the original building and would not enhance the area. Councillor James Cole disagreed with this view and stated that he thought the design was suitable.

16.       Councillor Tony Vickers reported that he had not attended the site visit but had read the report and listened to the presentations carefully. He questioned whether any harm would be caused should the annexe be made available for separate occupancy but accepted that this caused some concern to others. Councillor Vickers proposed that planning permission be granted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, subject to the inclusion of a single occupancy condition. Councillor Abbs in seconding the proposal made the point that he could find no hard reason to refuse the application but would like a condition to restrict further development.

17.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Vickers as seconded by Councillor Abbs. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Design Statement and drawing Pur 019/102A received on 18 September 2019 and drawings Pur 019/111, 120 and 131 received on 22 August 2019.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

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. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

4. The annexe extension hereby approved shall only be used solely as an integral part of the existing dwelling known as The Old Coach House, and for residential purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of that dwelling. It shall not be let, sold, occupied or disposed of separately from the main single unit of residential accommodation on the site.

Reason: The creation of a separate unit of accommodation is inappropriate for the site, and would be detrimental to the amenities of the area contrary to policy CS 14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. The decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, South East Plan 2006-2026, West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted 1998, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991- 2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, Supplementary Planning Document; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary. If you require further information on this decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

INFORMATIVE:

1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2 The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met. A fee is required for an application to discharge conditions.

3 This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

4 - To ensure that the trees which are to be retained are protected from damage, ensure that all works occur in a direction away from the trees.

- In addition that no materials are stored within close proximity i.e. underneath the canopy of trees to be retained.

- Ensure that all mixing of materials that could be harmful to tree roots is done well away from trees (outside the canopy drip line) and downhill of the trees if on a slope, to avoid contamination of the soil.