Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. 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 Carolyne Culver Abbs declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. 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 19/01540/HOUSE in respect of an extension to the garage and a first floor extension.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Mr Andrew Wilcock and Ms Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Mr James McCall, supporter, and Mr Lee Clark applicant, 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

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

•        The Parish Council were against this third application. They were concerned about the projection of the building to the rear of the property and felt it was inappropriate and overbearing.

•        It was understood that in this area houses were squeezed in amongst each other and that this modern house would affect the back of the existing property.

•        Developments had to take into consideration the wellbeing of neighbours, and the Parish Council felt that a side-by-side design would have been acceptable.

•        There would be significant shadowing of the courtyard of the neighbouring property.

•        The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area.

•        The courtyard was the only available outside space for the residents of No.1. The high wall would make the space prison-like.

•        The first application was dismissed as unacceptable due to the impact on the neighbours living conditions. The second application had been dismissed by WBC. The Parish Council recommended that the third application should also be dismissed, as the design could be modified with the extension being moved to a different location on the site, where it would not impact on the courtyard.

5.     Councillor Hilary Cole noted that according to the plans, the extension was towards the front of Cherry Hinton and some distance from the boundary of No.1. She was unable to see how this would result in the view from the courtyard being that of a large brick wall. Mr Barlow explained that the underlying Ordnance Survey map was incorrect and the plan did not give a true view.

6.     Councillor Adrian Abbs wondered what type of extension would be acceptable to the Parish Council. Mr Barlow replied that it would have been more acceptable to extend to the north of the property, rather than the more obvious choice of above the garage.

7.     Mr Wilcock and Ms Fleetwood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

•        Ms Fleetwood had lived at No.1 for 12 years.

•        The previous applications had been refused due to the size, proximity and overbearing nature of the design.

•        The objector’s house was built on a lower level to Cherry Hinton. There was a small courtyard which would have reduced sunlight from the afternoon onwards, as it would be blocked by the extension. The Planning Inspectors concerns for the first application had not been addressed in the second, and it had therefore been refused.

•        The proposal was overly dominant and overbearing, reducing light to the courtyard from 4pm onwards. The view from the courtyard would be a 25ft wall.

•        The design was out of keeping with the area.

•        She hoped that the Committee understood her feelings and would reject the proposal.

•        Mr Wilcock noted that the site of their garage was different to that on the plans, and that was why they would be able to see the brick wall. There was very little difference between this and the previous applications. The objectors were making no claims about sunlight on windows. Their concern was about the sunlight being lost to the courtyard.

8.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked for confirmation that the brick wall could still be seen from the courtyard in the amended application. Mr Wilcock confirmed that it would be like an obelisk, although it was better than on the previous application, it was a matter of degree.

9.     Councillor Howard Woollaston remarked that he struggled to see how the sunlight was reduced. Mr Wilcock explained that the sun passed over the ridge of the house at 4pm in the sky above the garage, and that this was what they would lose.

10.  Mr McCall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

•        He noted that there had been 15 letters of objection, and 20 letters of support. He wanted to address the objectors concerns.

•        The extension had been moved back in line with the garage of No.1, therefore the wall would be barely visible and would not block the sun from the courtyard, as had been suggested.

•        The extension was small and, compared to neighbouring properties, did not fill a large percentage of the curtilage.

•        The Conservation Officer had confirmed that it would not harm the character of the conservation area.

•        Light surveys were not an exact science, but the commissioned surveys made it plain that there would be a negligible loss of light in every respect.

11.  Mr Clark in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

•        He was a hard-working man, with a young family, trying to make a better life.

•        He had taken pre-planning advice from West Berkshire Council and presented the plans to the Parish Council, however the Mr Barlow had not been present at the meeting.

•        He had been transparent with this neighbours and had reached a verbal agreement with Ms Fleetwood, although she had since reneged.

•        He had paid £1,200 for a light survey, but West Berkshire Council had been asked to commission another survey, as his was not considered to be independent. The two surveys had reached the same conclusions.

•        The extension had been brought in-line with the garage and away from the boundary. A window had been removed from the design, so there was no chance of overlooking.

•        He asked the Committee what more he could do.

12.  Councillor Carolyne Culver, as Ward Member in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

•        She acknowledged the stress levels due to the delays with the application. Bearing in mind the plans for the previous applications were not in the agenda pack, which meant Members could not compare them, it seemed that the current design was set back from the garage and not in-line with it.

•        The Committee had not been presented with evidence to show that ridge heights had been dropped or been provided with the Planning Inspector’s comments.

•        She had not been persuaded that the amended proposal was the solution.

13.  Derek Carnegie explained that, although the previous applications were not before the Committee, he could assure Members that the applicant had made significant revisions to reduce the impact on his neighbour’s property. The garage was incorrectly plotted by Ordnance Survey, but he was satisfied that the report showed the size of the building.

14.  Councillor James Cole asked if Members were allowed to take loss of light into consideration, as there appeared to be some dispute as to the level of the reduction. Derek Carnegie made clear that there was no confusion with regard to the expert opinion, which was that there would be no noticeable reduction. The light surveys applied national standards and had determined that there would be no adverse effect on the neighbouring property.

15.  Councillor Jeff Cant noted that a single storey design had been granted for the 2017 application. Derek Carnegie explained that it had been the opinion that a two storey design would have had an adverse effect. However, the applicant had reduced the bulk of the design and changed the location, to ensure these concerns had been met.

16.  Councillor James Cole elucidated that when he stood in the courtyard he imagined what it would be like when the extension had been built, and concluded that it would be dominating and overbearing. It would reduce the amenity value of the courtyard.

17.  Councillor Rowles believed there would be an impact on the living conditions of the neighbours. She appreciated that the applicant had made every attempt to improve the design and had consulted with planning officers, however she felt there would still be significant impact and a considerable wall to be seen from the courtyard.

18.  Councillor Cant commented that the design was overbearing. Councillor Hilary Cole explained that every development had an impact. Nobody was ever happy when an extension was proposed. The applicant had made substantial concessions and changes since the previous two proposals. The extension had been brought forward and was in-line with the garage, and the dimensions had been reduced significantly. The neighbours felt that they were affected, but the light issues have been addressed and the surveys indicated that there was nothing to be concerned about. Members needed to be pragmatic.

19.  Councillor Phil Barnett expressed his concern as to the level of the Cherry Hinton in relation to the courtyard.  The courtyard was much lower, and the wall would therefore impinge on anyone using the open-space. He did recognise that the applicant had tried to mitigate the problems with the design, and must be commended for doing so. However, he had considered the concerns of No.1 and felt that, as they would be in some difficulty, he would not be supporting the application.

20.  Councillor Abbs noted that he had heard during the discussion that a two storey design had previously been rejected, but that a single storey extension would have been acceptable. There was space to build the extension elsewhere on the site that would not impact on the neighbouring property. He was undecided, but on the two occasions he had visited the site he had seen that the courtyard was set at a lower level, and therefore the ridge height of the proposed extension was of considerable importance.

21.  Councillor James Cole recalled that the Parish Council representative had stated that he would have built the extension elsewhere on the site. There was no need for the Committee to approve this design, as there were alternative ways to expand the property that would not impact on the neighbouring house.

22.  Councillor James Cole proposed to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse permission. This motion was seconded by Councillor Rowles for the reason of the overbearing nature of the design.

23.  Councillor Hilary Coles questioned officers as to the whether a decision to refuse the application would be accepted on appeal. Derek Carnegie responded that he could not be confident that the Planning Inspector would dismiss an appeal, due to the number of concessions made by the applicant and the shadowing report.

24.  Councillor Culver recognised the frustration of the applicant who had sought advice from planning officers, and had great sympathy with both the objectors and the applicant.

25.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that they must consider the application before them and whether it met policy.

26.  At the vote the motion was denied, with three voting in favour, four against and two Members abstaining.

27.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed a further motion to accept officer’s recommendation and approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Woollaston. At the vote the motion was carried, with five voting in favour and four against.

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 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 the site location plan, block plan and drawing number 239-01 received on 21 June 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.            No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

5.            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 which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and/or C of that Order shall be constructed on the north-eastern 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).