Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(4) 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.)

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and Adrian Abbs declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(4) 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(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02676/HOUSE in respect of a 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.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Taig McNab and Mr James Green objectors, and Mr James Sopp (Hungerford Design), 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

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

·         Mr Green noted that there were two principle issues regarding the impact of this proposed scheme on his property, No.37, which were the loss of light due to the enlarged side extension near to his boundary, and the overbearing nature of the design.

·         In order to reduce the impact on his neighbour Mr McNab’s property, the design increased the impact on his property, as a trade-off.

·         In the previous application the roof had been massive but balanced, however the new design left it unbalanced and ugly.

·         The extension was overbearing and ugly.

·         He was surprised that the original consent had been granted.

·         Mr McNab stated that the new roof line did not comply with policy, SPG section 4, as the amended roof line was not subservient and was a storey taller than the original property.

·         Objections had been made as the design was ugly, and he would rather have the extant design with a more balanced roof.

·         The application had been deferred by the Western Area Planning Committee on 18 December 2019, so that more information could be provided regarding shadowing. However, he felt that the diagram provided was misleading, as it did not compare different times of day or year, but was a single snapshot of a day in spring. He considered the deferment as a waste of time and money.

·         He asked that the Committee reject the application so that the neighbours’ concerns could be dealt with.

·         This proposal had depreciated the value of his property by thousands of pounds and his wife had been severely affected by the stress of the dispute.

5.     Councillor Carolyne Culver remarked that the previous application had been approved under delegated authority, and asked why the neighbours had not asked their Ward Member to call it in to Committee. Mr Green explained that he had sought advice from his Ward Member and she had instructed him to go the Town Council meeting, which he did. The Town council had rejected the application. He had not been advised by his Ward Member that there was a process in place whereby an application could be called-in to be considered by the Western Area Planning Committee.

6.     Councillor Adrian Abbs inquired how the objectors had created their own shadow diagrams. Mr McNab explained that he had used a website, designed for people like him. Members of the public, without special technical knowledge or skill, could create something similar to that provided by the architect. Councillor Abbs speculated whether these drawings were valid. Mr McNab asserted that they were 100% valid.

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

·         Following the decision made by the Committee on 18 December 2019 to defer the decision on this application, a shadow diagram had been provided by the architect and the scale of the design of the rear extension had been significantly reduced.

·         The minimum requirement for right of light was 50%, at 50.1% the design was above the minimum.

8.     Councillor Abbs inquired whether the new design was deeper than that of the existing approval. Mr Sopp confirmed that it was 200mm deeper, but this had been reduced on the current design.

9.     Councillor Andy Moore, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was surprised that the application had returned to the Committee so soon after it had been deferred.

·         He was glad that the shadow designs had been provided and noted that they were dated as March, but were obviously describing a point late in the afternoon in June. There was no comparison of the new and old design or for different times of the year, and he felt it was a pity that the objector had to be relied on to provide this information.

·         He recognised that there was an approved design that no-one wanted to see built.

·         There was the additional factor of a pending legal case against the original design of 2018.

·         The new proposal was an improvement, but should the objector win the legal challenge, then the extant permission would not be able to be enacted. He felt it would be best at this point to refuse this application and let the legal action play out.

10.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked the Legal Officer for confirmation that a civil litigation case should not affect the Committee’s decision. Kim Eccles confirmed that Councillor Cole was correct, and that it had no bearing.

11.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked for further clarification as to whether the Members could decide to approve an application that may be irrelevant should the 2018 permission be overturned. Kim Eccles reiterated that the Members should consider the application before them tonight, and that it was unaffected by the pending legal challenge.

12.  Councillor Abbs commented that it was clear that the Committee was determining the application presented to them this evening.

13.  Councillor Rowles asked the Planning Officer to explain the shadow diagrams presented by the architect. Derek Carnegie described how the diagram showed that shadowing was limited, and was an improvement on the existing scheme. Officers were content with the diagrams. He observed that it might be difficult for Members to find a sensible middle ground, given the conflicting diagrams provided by the objectors and the architect.

14.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked for confirmation that the extant permission remained valid and could be built, should the new application be refused. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this was the case, although it was under legal challenge.

15.  Councillor Abbs asked whether the officers accepted the objectors shadow diagrams as valid. Derek Carnegie answered that he had not been able to look at them in detail. He asked that Members take into consideration that this was a terraced street, where it was nigh on impossible to do anything that did not impinge on a neighbour. Planning Officers were responsible for ensuring that appropriate housing was provided without spoiling amenities. The revised scheme provided a larger family home without affecting local amenities or neighbours dramatically. He further explained that the applicant would always show the design at its best, and conversely the objector would show it at its worst. The Committee would have to find the middle ground. Officers had visited the scheme, and having viewed it from all sides, found it to be satisfactory.

16.  Councillor Abbs observed that Mr Green had commented that the previous application had been restricted on his side, and the revised plan was more impactful on his property. Derek Carnegie noted that the changes made were not significant enough to warrant refusal.

17.  Councillor Rowles reiterated that the legal case was ongoing and that the Committee might be debating a hypothetical application and asked for further reassurance from the Legal Officer. Kim Eccles re-asserted that the litigation should not affect the Members decision. Councillor Hilary Cole repeated that each application should be determined on its own merits.

18.  Councillor Abbs observed that on the site visit, many Members were shocked at the lack of light in the objector’s homes at this time of year. If the previous application had come before the Committee he believed that it would not have been approved. The new proposal impacted on both neighbours. The applicant could have extended with little impact, but had chosen not to.

19.  Councillor Abbs proposed that the Committee reject officer’s recommendation and reject planning permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Phil Barnett.

20.  Councillor Barnet expounded that residents were living in a climate where they were encouraged to stay in their existing properties and extend them. The area around Russell Road was a mix-and-match of extensions in the rear of houses. Extensions to the rear of houses do not necessarily affect the street scene and he would ordinarily support such an application. However, on visiting this site he was aware of the impact and that the extension would remove too much light from neighbouring properties.

21.  Councillor James Cole noted that there were two sets of shadow diagram, neither of which had been provided by experts. The objectors set had not been considered by officers and he was uncomfortable with this.

22.  Councillor Hilary Cole regarded the photograph of the extension of No.37. She noted that there were no windows in the side aspect and it would therefore, not suffer from shadowing. In her opinion, she also felt that the timber cladding was out of keeping with surrounding properties. Councillor Rowles questioned whether the windows and design of No.37 were relevant to the debate. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Members were often invited to take the street scene into consideration and it was therefore, a valid comment.

23.  Councillor Cant reflected that whilst he had considerable sympathy with the neighbours, he reminded Members that they could not legitimately re-run the approval of the extant permission. The new design was better than the original.

24.  Councillor Abbs concurred that the Committee should consider the application on its own merits, as they could control this and only this.

25.  At the vote, the motion was carried to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission, with four in favour, three against and two abstentions.

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

Reason: Loss of light and adverse impact on amenity.