Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(4), by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council. 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 Clive Hooker returned to the Chair.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02676/HOUSE in respect of Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - Approved plans and Condition 3 - Materials of previously approved application 18/00541/HOUSE: Demolish single-storey garage and rear conservatory. Proposed two-storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion, to create large family home. Widen existing dropped kerb access to provide four off-road parking spaces.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Green and Mr Taig McNab, objector, and Mr James Sopp (Hungerford Design), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

1.     Councillor Adrian Abbs proposed a Motion under Rule 7.6.2 of the Constitution to extend the meeting and conclude business by 10.30pm. Councillor Hilary Cole seconded the motion and the Committee voted in favour.

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 less intrusive than the extant permission and a conditional approval was justifiable.

3.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to comment. Paul Goddard confirmed that he was content with the proposal.

4.     Mr Green in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           This was the second time he had opposed the scheme and on neither occasion had the applicant consulted him.

·           The concerns raised against the rejected scheme, such as subservience, gap retention and an imbalance in the overall design had not been addressed by the new proposal.

·           The design had doubled the size of the existing house. The planning officers did not consider this to be significant, but Mr Green and other residents did. It was not right, and it was not fair or reasonable.

5.     Mr McNab in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The loss of light to his kitchen window meant that the room would only be able to access 28% of natural light. This was half the legal allowance and was an unreasonable level of overshadowing.

·           He had been forced to take legal action against the extant design, hence the new application. The new plan was meant to reduce the size of the proposal, but the depth was now even greater. The recommendation of the planning officer was that by increasing the depth, the impact would be reduced. However, he was unable to reconcile how building a brick wall in front of his kitchen window could reduce the impact.

6.     Councillor Andy Moore asked if the result of the legal case in play would change officer’s view of the application. Mr McNab explained that he had sought legal advice on the extant permission. The proposal before the Committee was a redesign to try and make less impact, however his survey suggested that the new proposal would still impact his living conditions adversely.

7.     Mr Sopp in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Loss of light was not a planning consideration.

·           Changes had been made to the design to mitigate the impact on neighbouring properties:

o   The loft conversion had been reduced.

o   Overall, there was 5m² less floor space.

o   The house would be rendered and painted, to reflect light.

o   Changes had been made to reduce shadowing.

8.     Councillor Tony Vickers remarked that this application was like rubbing someone’s scab off. He reflected that it seemed unlikely that an extension would reduce the overlooking of the kitchen window. Mr Sopp explained that a three dimensional model had been created to demonstrate the shadowing the re-design had been trying to accommodate.

9.     Councillor Hilary Cole observed that the proposal would affect habitable rooms, and was surprised that there was not more evidence in the report of what actions had been taken to mitigate this. Derek Carnegie stated that the 2018 scheme had been accepted and this new design was a better plan. Councillor Cole commented that she was nervous about making a decision when a legal challenge was in place. Shiraz Sheikh advised that a legal challenge did not prevent the Committee from making a decision.

10.  Councillor Jeff Cant offered the view that the Committee was not re-opening the debate on an existing consent, but was instead debating the revised proposal which reduced over-shadowing. Derek Carnegie reiterated that the revised scheme was an improvement.

11.  Councillor Abbs asked officers to clarify what options were open to the Committee. Derek Carnegie explained that the footprint had been agreed in 2018. If the amended scheme was approved, the neighbouring residents could make a legal challenge if they found it unsatisfactory. Shiraz Sheikh further clarified that Members should consider the application before them. The legal case was not a challenge to the planning process, but was a prescriptive challenge.

12.  Councillor Claire Rowles observed that there was no evidence that the new design was an improvement on the last. She was nervous that a legal case was in the background. She would prefer to defer the decision to enable the gathering and presentation of more evidence, such as the three dimensional model to show the reduction in shadowing. Derek Carnegie reiterated that there was an extant scheme and the revised design would reduce the impact significantly.

13.  Councillor Cant noted that the Council would definitely have a legal case made against them if they tried to reverse the 2018 decision. The decision had been made and the Committee should approve the amended application. Councillor Cole concurred with Councillor Cant.

14.  Councillor Tony Vickers felt that the Committee should defer their decision, as they had no information about what was approved under delegated powers in 2018.

15.  Councillor Cant made it clear that he was frustrated by the call for a deferral. He asserted that it was not the role of the Committee to reprise the planning process. Officers had assured the Members that there had been an improvement. He did not understand the purpose of a deferral.

16.  Councillor Adrian Abbs explained that he was unable to assess the application before him, as he did not have all the necessary information required to take a decision.

17.  Councillor Rowles confirmed that she was not comfortable with making a decision with the information provided. She observed that officers were not always right, and it was the Committee’s role to challenge. This proposal would have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties.

18.  Councillor Rowles proposed that the Committee reject officer’s recommendation and defer their decision. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Vickers.

19.  Councillor Woollaston ventured that Members were making themselves look foolish. The officers had given a clear recommendation that this was an improvement on the existing scheme. Mr McNab was free to pursue a legal challenge and get the decision overturned.

20.  Councillor Clive Hooker observed that the kitchen was very dark and was only going to get worse. The Committee would be approving a plan which would deteriorate people’s lives.

21.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Rowles as seconded by Councillor Vickers, which was carried at the vote with five in favour and four against.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning defer the decision for the following reasons:

To enable officers to produce more evidence of the potential impact of the proposal at the next Committee meeting.