Agenda item

(Councillors Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and 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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item(4) 2 by virtue of the fact that he was Ward Member. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/02820/FULD in respect of a new dwelling on land at 67 Andover Road, Newbury.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Parish Council representative, Mr Anthony Pick and Ms Jackie Milsom, objector, and Mr John Kane and Ms Annika Hatchwell (Inspiration Chartered Architects), applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to expound on his part of the report. Paul Goddard confirmed that he had no objections to the proposal.

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

·                     The Town Council had listened to the arguments and considered the messages, and had voted to raise no objection.

·                     They felt the distance between the terrace and the proposed development was sufficient, as it was less than the distance to the existing house to the left of the terrace.

·                     The aspect from Andover Road was minimal, as only the gable end of the house would be seen. Compared to the house to the left of the terrace, this proposal was less obtrusive as it was set back and was hidden by shrubbery.

·                     From the Erleigh Dene aspect, they did not feel there would be any impact on the street scene.

·                     There had been adequate space left at the rear to safeguard the trees, and landscaping plans would provide for shrubbery to soften the view.

·                     When the application had come before the Town Council they had felt that it might enhance the view from the Andover Road as the development would be set back, and the shrubbery currently masking the terrace would be reduced.

·                     This was a passive house, which they supported in the light of the announced Climate Emergency.

6.     Councillor Carolyne Culver asked for the Town Council’s view on the materials being used and whether they were in keeping with the surroundings. Mr Foot remarked that this had been discussed. The Town Council were keen on the passive house design and the provision of shrubbery, and felt the scale of the design would not have an adverse impact. Councillor Culver questioned whether the shrubbery mitigated the visual harm caused by the use of the proposed materials. Mr Foot explained that it would be softened. They had been impressed by the passive house, and its provision required certain configurations.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers inquired, as this was a passive house, whether the applicant would be open to it being conditioned and therefore enforceable. Mr Foot replied that the applicant was very sensitive to the fact that a Climate Emergency had been called, and would do their best to build a passive house.

8.     Ms Milsom and Mr Pick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Ms Milsom was resident at No.63 and was speaking on behalf of the other residents of the terrace and locality.

·                     She had lived at No.63 for 30 years and understood how to look after a listed building. No.61 had recently been lovingly and carefully restored.

·                     She had stood in the garden and considered it of a decent size for a four bedroomed house, but could not image how the curtilage could accommodate another three bedroomed house, and have space for two gardens. It was saddening and depressing.

·                     It was the council’s policy to retain heritage assets, and to conserve and enhance their setting.

·                     This proposal would detrimentally impact on the terrace. The argument that it would have less impact than No.59, the chalet bungalow to the left of the terrace, was nonsensical.  No.59 had been built two years before the terrace had become listed, was wholly behind the line of the terrace and had a lower ridge height. The proposed development was two metres behind the front wall and had a ridge height higher than the terrace. It would be dominating and block light for No.67.

·                     The distinctiveness of Andover Road, lay in that it was a garden suburb, gateway road. The two small gardens proposed would be completely out of keeping.

·                     However desirable a passive house was, its design did not meet the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the Newbury Town Design Statement (NTDS). Protecting a heritage asset should not be neglected in favour of financial gain.

·                     Mr Pick noted that the Newbury Society had offered a strong objection to the proposal. There were few, if any, eighteenth century properties in Newbury still used for residential purposes.

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers queried whether the view of No.67 was obscured by shrubbery. Ms Milsom replied that there was a large laurel bush that obscured the ground level, but the upper level and roof were visible.

10.  Councillor James Cole asked the objectors to explain more about the significance of the terrace as a heritage asset. Mr Pick observed that many properties built in the eighteenth century in Newbury were now used for commercial purposes. He was not aware of any others that were still occupied by residents. The terrace was of exceptional heritage value to the town, and this included the setting and curtilage.

11.  Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that there had only been ten objections submitted to the Committee, but thirty members of the public had supported the application. Mr Pick explained that the objections were made by local people, but the supporters were not.

12.  Ms Hatchwell and Mr Kane in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Ms Hatchwell explained that the application was in line with policy and was delivering an urban provision for new housing.

·                     There would be no harm caused to the trees. This was a high quality design that was taking into account the Climate Emergency.

·                     The objections raised were based on personal opinion, and no objection had been raised by the Town Council.

·                     As this was a gateway road, any opinion of any resident of Newbury was just as valid as that of the neighbours.

·                     There would be no loss of greenery and the leylandii trees would be replaced with a superior tree.

·                     The development was set back by two metres and there would be no loss of symmetry to the terrace.

·                     The materials being used would allow the terrace to stand out and would reflect the great range of architectural style of the surrounding houses.

·                     Mr Kane continued that he and his wife were classically trained musicians who had lived in Newbury for 30 years. They had raised their children and been involved in the community.

·                     They believed this to be a beautifully designed passive house, which would be built in their own garden.

·                     They had cared for their own house and, although they respected their neighbours’ views, they sincerely would not wish to detract from the terrace. They considered that this development would enhance the terrace.

·                     They wanted to create a sustainable, town centre house for themselves in a wasted corner of their garden. It would not be overlooked or seen by neighbours.

13.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the objectors had referred to the NTDS and wondered whether this had been taken into account. Ms Hatchwell confirmed that it had, but that the design came down to what was appropriate and what was a priority.

14.  Councillor Carolyne Culver inquired as to what would be used to replace the leylandii, and how long it would take to grow to the able to screen the property. Ms Hatchwell commented that this would be agreed with the Tree Officer. She also noted that the first application had been withdrawn to allow for more space to be made available for trees.

15.  Councillor Adrian Abbs in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·                     He was speaking on behalf of David Marsh, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

·                     David Marsh had been open-minded and had given the application a fair hearing, but on-balance he would oppose the proposal.

·                     It was in the wrong place and out of keeping, despite the environmental design.

16.  Councillor Abbs asked officers to clarify the distance between the terrace and the proposed development. Sian Cutts explained that the distance was 9m at the closest point, but front edge to front edge was 11.5m.

17.  Councillor Claire Rowles inquired as to the distance to the chalet bungalow to the left of the terrace. Sian Cutts explained it was 7.5m, but it was stepped back significantly, had a lower ridge height and was topographically at a lower level.

18.  Councillor Culver inquired as to the recommended amenity space for a property. Sian Cutts explained that it was 100 square metres for a three bedroomed house and that she was satisfied that there was space for both houses.

19.  Councillor James Cole remarked that he took every application on its own merits, even though he was the Heritage Champion. The eighteenth and, in part, nineteenth century residential terrace was in good shape. The debate was mostly about the setting. The chalet bungalow to the left of the terrace was set way back.

20.  The council had a duty to provide housing and the design may be good, but the development was in the wrong place. The heritage aspect trumped the environmental design. The council also had a duty to protect the heritage of the district.

21.  The new house would damage the setting and the proposed materials did not suit the setting.

22.  Councillor James Cole proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission.

23.  Councillor Vickers explained that he knew both the applicant and the next door neighbour and might therefore not be able to vote on this item. He did not think the decision was clear. This was an important heritage building and the setting would be affected. All over Newbury there were examples of modern buildings, built with distinct materials and design which fit in with older architecture. He did not consider that the harm would be significant. Originally, the terrace had been surrounded by farm land. He considered the quality of the design and applauded the commitment to go over and above with the energy efficient design.

24.  Councillor Barnett informed that Committee that he had lived in Andover Road and had seen great changes, but recognised there should be a balance of properties. Some developments had changed the street scene for the better, some had not. However, the terrace was unique. On balance he would vote to follow officer recommendations.

25.  Councillor Rowles recognised that the street scene had changed. She felt strongly that the residents of the terrace had fought long and hard to protect the heritage asset. The space for the development was not a massive garden and the property would be sited a lot further forward that the chalet bungalow on the opposing side.

26.  Councillor Rowles seconded the proposal to accept officer’s recommendations and refuse planning permission.

27.  Councillor Abbs made it clear how much he supported people who went over and above to provide energy efficient homes, however this could not be taken into account as a planning consideration when other priorities overrode. If the proposal had been smaller and stepped back further, he may not have worried. However, the development had been shoe-horned into the space. He would accept officer’s advice.

28.  Councillor Hilary Cole described the design as a super, innovative passive house, which in other circumstances would have swayed her decision. However this proposal was in the wrong place and would spoil the integrity of the terrace.

29.  Councillor Culver concurred with Councillors Cole and Abbs and supported sustainable housing, and would encourage everyone to embrace energy efficient design. However, this was not an excuse to agree to put something in an inappropriate place, and not in keeping with the heritage of the area.

30.  At the vote the motion was carried with one abstention.

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

Reasons:

1.     Impact on listed building:

No. 67 Andover Road is part of a terrace containing Nos. 61 - 67 Andover Road.  The terrace is a Grade II listed late eighteenth century building, with a symmetrical Georgian facade. The symmetry of the terrace is further enhanced by the open space either side of the building. This open space makes an important contribution to the setting of this Grade II listed building.  The introduction of built form in this sensitive garden area, combined with the contemporary design of the new dwelling, and the use of visually competing materials, its forward location to the side road and corner, and the loss of verdant character of this part of the Andover Road street scene would seriously harm the setting of this listed building by unbalancing this symmetrical terrace. The application is therefore contrary to policy CS14 and CS19 of the Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the advice contained within the NPPF (20219).

2.     Impact on the character and appearance of the area

No. 67 Andover Road is part of a terrace containing Nos. 61 - 67 Andover Road.  The terrace is a Grade II listed late eighteenth century building, with a symmetrical Georgian facade. The symmetry of the terrace is further enhanced by the open space either side of the building. This open space makes an important contribution to the setting of this Grade II listed building, and the character and appearance of this part of Andover Road which is an important gateway to Newbury. The introduction of built form in this sensitive garden area, combined with the contemporary design of the new dwelling,  and the use of visually competing materials, its forward location to the side road and corner, and the loss of verdant character of this part of the Andover Road street scene would seriously harm the character with the listed terrace and the dwellings within the immediate locality, and would be detrimental to the street scene, and the character and appearance of this important gateway to Newbury. The application is therefore contrary to policy CS14 and CS19 of the Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the Quality Design SPD (2006) and the Newbury Town Design Statement (2018).