Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/02333/FULD in respect of the retention of existing house, demolition of existing barn building and greenhouse. There would be a division of the plot to allow for the construction of a new family dwelling and double garage. There would be a double garage outbuilding for the existing house and associated works to the driveway.

Mr Bob Dray, Team Leader – Development Control, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The site was located partly within the defined settlement boundary and partly outside the settlement boundary.

·         The previous application for the site had been for a large two storey house and had been dismissed at appeal on 20th June 2019. The main reasons for the dismissal were the impact on the character and appearance, and amenity.

·         The current application had been referred by the Development Control Manager as the proposal was a departure from the Development Plan. It was only being recommended for approval because the Inspector had not objected to the previous development in principle.

·         Officers were satisfied that issues relating to the character and appearance had been addressed in the new application.

·         It was felt that objections regarding the previous application and any technical issues had been overcome. Officers felt that the application was justifiable in a way that did not undermine the Development Plan.

·         In considering all elements of the application, Officers were recommending approval of the proposal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Brenda Kerr Muir, Parish Council representative, Mike Milton, agent, and Councillor Gareth Hurley, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Ms Brenda Kerr Muir in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

She was representing Pangbourne Parish Council and declared that she had lived on the same road as the application site, only quarter of a mile away. She had met the applicant on one occasion ten years ago.

Pangbourne Parish Council had not raised an objection to the application however, had raised a number of comments.

Part of the site fell outside of the settlement boundary however, there was a clear question regarding where the historical village boundary laid.

If the historical boundary was taken into account the whole of the site would be included within the boundary.

The new application had been adapted to reflect changes following the previously submitted application, which was refused by the Planning Inspector.

The Parish Council felt that it was a modest proposal for the site within the village of Pangbourne. 

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Graham Pask queried the historical boundary Ms Kerr Muir was referring to and asked her to clarify if she was referring to the red line shown on the maps. Ms Kerr Muir confirmed that this was correct. Councillor Alan Law stated that what Ms Kerr Muir was referring to was a village boundary and not a settlement boundary. A village boundary was not a planning consideration. Councillor Pask attempted to further clarify the red line Ms Kerr Muir was referring to and queried if she had any local knowledge on this issue.  Ms Kerr Muir stated that she was basing her information on what was stated in the Design Access Statement.

Councillor Law commented that he had looked back at the previous applications for the site. He noted that the previous application, which had been on the same footprint as the current application, had been objected to by the Parish Council. Councillor Law queried why the Parish Council were therefore no longer objecting to the application. Ms Kerr Muir explained that the membership of the Parish Council had changed following the Parish and Town Council Elections and as a result of this opinions had changed.

Agent’s Representations:

Mr Mike Milton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He was the architect who had been commissioned by the applicant who lived at Three Cliffs.

The site was within the domestic curtilage, which was currently being used by the existing house as a garden area.

The barn was used for domestic storage.

The Planning Inspector had felt that the site was in an accessible location and that this was in line with Planning Policy CS1.

The Planning Inspector had stated in their appeal decision that the proposal would offer an additional unit of windfall residential accommodation on garden land and in the context of local and national policy, sought to significantly boost the supply of housing.

The proposal would create highly energy efficient accommodation.

The previous application had been refused for the following reasons: height and scale; the visibility of the proposal from the road; and the impact on neighbouring properties. These issues had been resolved within the new application in Mr Milton’s view.

The proposed dwelling was proposed to stand exactly where the current barn building stood. It would however, have a slightly extended footprint.

The driveway to the site would be altered as part of the proposal and landscaping would be undertaken so that the dwelling would not be visible from the road.

Regarding the settlement boundary, Mr Milton commented that the red line represented the line of a previous fence and line of trees. Mr Milton felt that this would form a more natural line for the settlement boundary to follow.

The existing barn was 110m2 and the proposed dwelling would be 163m2. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling would match the ridge height of the existing barn.

Mr Milton confirmed that all trees would be retained and the materials used for the proposed dwelling would reflect that of the existing barn. The proposal would fit in with the distinctive woodland setting of the site.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Pask noted that Mr Milton had stated that the Planning Inspector had felt that the application was compliant with CS1 and queried where in the appeal decision Mr Milton was referring to. Mr Milton stated that he had said that the Planning Inspector had supported the principle of the development. Councillor Pask recalled that Mr Milton had specifically referred to compliance with Policy CS1 and further questioned him on this point. Councillor Law highlighted that the appeal decision clearly stated that the application would not comply with CS1. Councillor Pask concurred with this point. Mr Milton stated that what he should have said was that the Planning Inspector had found the location to be effectively compliant.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the woodland along the edge of the site and queried if this would be retained if approval was granted. Mr Milton stated that the domestic curtilage was very limited and the woodland fell outside of this.

Councillor Geoff Mayes noted that Mr Milton had stated that the dwelling would be highly efficient and asked for further detail on this point. Councillor Mayes also noted that section 6.14 referred to a standing seam metal for the roof and queried exactly what this was. Mr Milton confirmed that the frame would be made out of zinc metal which was non-ferrous. The phrase ‘standing seam’ referred to how the frame would be linked together. Councillor Mayes further queried if it would be linked to polystyrene and Mr Milton confirmed that it would not and that the insulation was below it. 

Councillor Law stated that it was his understanding that the proposal would be on the same footprint as the previous application however, he asked Mr Milton to clarify this point. Mr Milton stated that the proposed ridge height would be the same as the existing barn. Regarding the footprint, the refused application had been of a similar width to the new application however, the neighbours would have been able to see the gable end and elevation. Within the new application the proposal had been relocated slightly to where the existing barn stood and this meant that the gable end would not be in view. Councillor Law noted that this had caused the proposal to fall outside of the settlement boundary.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Alan Law read out the following statement from the Ward Member, Councillor Gareth Hurley, who in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He was the Ward Member for Pangbourne and was acutely aware of his responsibility to represent the village and all its residents including securing the future viability of shops and businesses that attracted people and provided valuable jobs.

Pangbourne was a village and there was not a desire for it to become a town.

One of the contributing factors that had made Pangbourne so unique was the proximity of the River Thames, railway line and other confluences. These geographical features had helped constrain the footprint of the village, urban spread and helped to maintain the precious village settlement boundary.

Continuous attempts had been made to breach or exceed the settlement boundary, often with detrimental consequences to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), adjacent properties and flooding.

Despite the planning recommendation from the Planning Officer the ‘Settlement Boundary’ was sacrosanct and should not be compromised.

If approved the application would set a precedent for Pangbourne and the whole of West Berkshire. There were many developers waiting for the right time to submit their atrocious planning applications, albeit Pangbourne or any other ward.

There was a formal process for identifying planning opportunities outside of the settlement boundaries and this needed to be adhered to.

As Ward Member, Councillor Hurley strongly objected to the application on all points listed above but principally the settlement boundary. He urged all Committee Members to vote with the same conclusion.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Andy Williamson raised a query regarding how boundary lines were determined. Councillor Williamson also raised a query relating to measurements and that there seemed to be little information on this in the pack. Mr Dray referred to Councillor Williamson’s question regarding how boundary lines were drawn. Boundary lines had been in place for many years however, they were last reviewed in 2012 under the Housing Site Allocation Development Planning Document (HSA DPD). There was a methodology, including a set of criteria in place, that had to be followed when drawing settlement boundaries and generally land lines were followed.

Regarding measurements and square meterage, Mr Dray explained that the measurements to which Councillor Williamson referred were for replacement dwellings and extensions under the former policies for housing in the countryside. As such, there was a different policy context, and there had been a move away from the use of percentages. Councillor Williamson felt that some square foot measurements would have been helpful.

Councillor Pask referred to the map on page 39 of the agenda and noted that the settlement boundary seemed to follow the back garden line to the east and then cut across the garden. He queried if this was the right assumption and Mr Dray confirmed that this was correct. 

Councillor Macro drew attention to paragraph five of the Planning Inspector’s appeal report on page 32 of the agenda, which concluded the proposed dwelling would harm the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). He asked if Mr Dray was confident that this matter had been overcome within the new application. Mr Dray explained that the previous proposal would have been clearly visible from the road. The current proposal would replace the existing barn building and therefore the visual impact from the road had been reduced in comparison to the previous proposal. The proposal would be not be bulkier than the existing barn building.

Councillor Macro asked Mr Dray if he was confident that the woodland would be retained if the application was approved. He was aware of the landscaping condition attached to the application however, he queried if this was strong enough to protect the woodland. Mr Dray stated that the area of trees that Councillor Macro was referring to would fall outside of residential use. The landscaping condition included was a standard condition. There was no planning obligation that stated that the area of trees must be retained. The landscaping condition would only last for five years. Councillor Macro queried if the landscaping condition could be extended beyond five years and Mr Dray commented that it was important that any conditions were reasonable and enforceable.

Councillor Williamson referred back to Councillor Pask’s question which related to the map on page 39 of the agenda and queried if there was anything to show the total settlement boundary in relation to the garden. It was noted that there were further properties to the rear of the plot. Councillor Law highlighted that the settlement boundary went through the middle of the plot. Councillor Williamson questioned if the settlement boundary went through the middle of the plot or turned at a right angle.  Mr Dray checked the policy maps that formed part of the background papers and highlighted that the boundary line cut through the middle of the garden belonging to Two Oaks.

Councillor Law referred to a statement made by one objector, in that West Berkshire Council must have had a clearly identified reason for locating the settlement boundary where it was. He stated that the Committee was often faced with applications where settlement boundaries fell through gardens and this was because gardens and fields moved.

Debate:

Councillor Law introduced the debate by stating that he felt that the application was unusual. Weight had to be given to the Local Plan and also the Inspector’s comments regarding the application. However, each site was different and on balance Planning Officers had expressed that they were satisfied with the proposal.

Councillor Pask noted that the architect had taken account of the Planning Inspector’s comments and the application was an improvement compared to the previous application. However, any changes to settlement boundaries were subject to a process, which formed part of the local planning process.

(Councillor Jeremy Cottam arrived at 7.17pm however, did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item)

It had been confirmed that the red line shown on maps, was not a formal boundary and therefore was irrelevant. The planning application was outside of the settlement boundary. Councillor Pask had read the Planning Inspector’s comments and stated that the Committee needed to consider if the application complied with the Council’s planning policies. Members of the Committee were responsible for planning policies and therefore it was inappropriate to allow boundary lines to be exceeded. Councillor Pask felt that it would be irresponsible to ‘drive a coach and horses’ through policy CS1. The application was acceptable in that it was lower and less visible however, it was clearly against policy and Councillor Pask was proud to represent a policy led local authority. Paragraph 11 of the report acknowledged that the proposal would offer some modest benefits however, the Planning Inspector clearly stated that the proposal was against planning policy.

Councillor Pask was fearful that if the Committee approved the application it would set a precedent regarding settlement boundaries elsewhere in the district. If the Parish Council felt that the settlement boundary was not correct then there was a process that could be taken to change this. Councillor Pask proposed that the application be refused due to conflicting with planning policy. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Ross Mackinnon.

Councillor Macro echoed comments made by Councillor Pask regarding a precedent being set. If the application was approved there would be further applications wishing to exceed settlement boundaries.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that West Berkshire Council was a plan led authority and stressed that there was obviously a reason why proposals for the site were being refused. There needed to be strong reasoning to deviate from planning policy and Councillor Mackinnon did not feel the current proposal provided this.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Pask and seconded by Councillor Mackinnon. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

• The proposal was contrary to the housing policies of the development plan.