Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/02947/FULD in respect of a new 4 bed dwelling to the side of Maple Corner including new access, hardstanding and landscaping.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The main consideration that was required was regarding the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

·         Page 42 of the report provided details on a new access (1.8) that was included as part of the proposal. West Berkshire Council’s Highways Department had raised no objections to the application (subject to planning conditions) and there were no concerns regarding the removal of trees and hedges that would be required along Aldworth Road, if the application was approved.

·         Members had raised a number of queries at the site visit and details were included within the update report. Members had requested details of a previously refused application (Sykes Gardens). The application had been refused by the Local Planning Authority and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate for reasons of highway safety relating to the access.

·         Members had also been concerned that the site measurements did not accord with the measurements on the submitted plans. The case officer had manually carried out checks on the measurements on site and the query was also raised with the agent who had also confirmed the site measurements were correct. Further information was detailed in the update report. 

·         Apart from the Parish Council none of the statutory consultees had objected to the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Anna Wakeman, objector, and Councillor Alan Law, Ward Member, addressed the committee on the application.

Objector Representations:

Ms Wakeman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Ms Wakeman lived at Wellesley House, which was located behind the proposed cottage.

·                    Ms Wakeman was concerned about trees on the site and road safety.

·                    Highways had raised no objections to the proposal however, had not visited the site to carry out a road assessment.

·                    Aldworth Road had a speed limit of 30mph however, few drivers actually adhered to the speed limit and the site was located near to a blind corner. The road was dangerous for cyclists and horse riders.

·                    The proposed access would add to the danger of the blind bend.

·                    Number five Sykes Gardens had requested permission for an additional access in 2010 however, this had been refused because there was no area to turnaround. Ms Wakeman understood that changes had been made to the recent application however, in her view these did not address the issues the Highway’s Officer had been trying to avoid in 2010.

·                    Objections had been raised by the Tree Officer and changes had been made to alleviate these concerns however, in Ms Wakeman’s view virtually no changes had actually been made when comparing to the original plan.

·                    A large lime and oak tree would be largely impacted upon by the development. There was also a tree to the back of Wellesley House that would be at risk if the application was approved.

·                    Ms Wakeman queried how these trees would be protected, as someone could quite easily move into the proposed dwelling and claim that the trees were dead and subsequently chop them down.

·                    The proposal would cause overdevelopment of the site, loss of light and also privacy.

·                    It would impact upon the open aspect of the area and would be built two metres from the boundary.

·                    If approved the view from 1 Sykes Gardens would be adversely impacted upon as it would look straight onto a brick wall.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Graham Pask noted that Ms Wakeman had implied that she did not feel the new application had changed sufficiently to not cause impact to trees on the site. The proposed dwelling was smaller than within the previous application. Councillor Pask queried which trees Ms Wakeman was concerned about. Ms Wakeman confirmed that she was concerned about the trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) to the back of the site and also the trees to the front of the site. The plan being discussed was, in Ms Wakeman’s view, similar to the application initially rejected, apart from the property had been moved slightly.

Ms Wakeman stated that the impression that was being given was that an application for a larger dwelling was the one that had been previously rejected however, she stated that this application had not managed to proceed far along the process.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that Ms Wakeman had felt that Officers had not conducted an adequate site visit and asked for further clarification on this point. Ms Wakeman stated that there was concern within the village regarding the danger of the road and that the access point was unsuitable. Councillor Mackinnon concluded then that Ms Wakeman was not happy with the conclusion reached by Officers rather than the process and Ms Wakeman confirmed that this was correct.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Alan Law in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Members who had attended the site visit would have noticed that most of Basildon was made up of various houses of different characters and shapes, from different time eras. The village was very varied.

·                    Councillor Law echoed concerns that had been raised about trees on the site. The trees stood out and formed part of the heart of the village. Councillor Law acknowledged that the Tree Officer was satisfied however, felt that the proposal was too close to the trees.

·                    Councillor Law echoed Ms Wakeman’s concerns about Aldworth Road. He was however, only aware of one incident that had occurred near the site.

·                    The entrance to the site would be located on a blind bend however, the Highway’s Officer was satisfied.

·                    To mitigate the dangers the traditional hedge could be removed or moved back two metres to improve visibility splays however, as seen elsewhere, this would change the character of the area to a more suburban one.

·                    Safety needed to be improved and therefore it was questionable whether the site was the appropriate area for the proposal.

·                    Councillor Law highlighted that the Parish Council had strongly objected to the application.

Questions to Officers:

Councillor Graham Pask referred to concerns raised about the trees on the site however, the Tree Officer had raised no objections. He understood that the previous application had been for a larger property however asked for Officers to clarify this further. Ms Melton reported that the original scheme for the site was amended numerous times. A number of concerns had been raised by the Tree Officer however, amendments had been made to the application to reduce concerns. The Tree Officer had been concerned about root protection and the plan for the site had been amended to avoid putting roots at risk.

Councillor Andy Williamson referred back to comments made about number 5 Sykes Gardens. The Highway’s Officer had objected to an additional access in 2010 however, seemed satisfied with the current scheme. Councillor Williamson asked Mr Gareth Dowding, Highway’s Officer, to elaborate on this point. Mr Dowding explained that number 5 Sykes Gardens had already had an access and were requesting an additional area of hard standing for parking directly off the road. The current proposal was for a single access to a new single property and it complied with the visibility requirements. Councillor Law added that the 2010 application, if approved, would have required a vehicle to reverse out of the access as there was not room to turn a vehicle around. Mr Dowding confirmed that this was correct, a vehicle would have been required to reverse in and drive out or alternatively drive in and reverse out. This therefore highlighted a major difference between the two applications.

Councillor Williamson raised a further query regarding delivery vehicles that might park on the road outside the site. He queried if this were to happen, if it could cause problems for vehicles trying to get passed in terms of blocking the visibility at the junction. Gareth Dowding stated as there were no restrictions in place the Local Authority would not be able to stop vehicles parking on the road outside the site, including delivery vehicles. However, if approved a Construction Method Plan could be required to control the build and deliveries, as part of the construction process.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the property at 1 Sykes Gardens, and it was acknowledged that this property had a ground floor kitchen. Councillor Macro queried how far the wall of the kitchen would be from the proposal. Ms Melton confirmed that this would be around five metres. 

Councillor Pask referred to section 1.10 of the report on page 42 of the report and further queried the distance from property to property. Councillor Law stated that the distance to the fence had been looked into at the site visit and had been about 1.5 metres.

Councillor Royce Longton noted that the Highway’s Officer had made a recommendation regarding the site without actually conducting a site visit and asked Officers to clarify this point. Mr Dowding reported that Highway’s Officers undertook a visit where there was a need. If there had been any concern regarding the sight lines then there would have been a visit however, Mr Dowding was unable to confirm this point.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam noted the improved sight lines that would be implemented if the application was approved and queried if this would actually improve the safety of the road system in the area. Mr Dowding reported that there were two recorded accidents on the road in question however, these had not been in the location where the access would be located. The sight lines proposed would enable those using the access to have a view that was in line with Highway Standards. The application would have been assessed based on the speed limit in the area. Councillor Cottam further questioned if the application would be of benefit to the road system. Mr Dowding stated that the hedgerow would be removed which would open up the road and improve visibility. Whether it would improve the road system would require further investigation however, it would improve visibility along the road and in Mr Dowding’s view improved visibility was a benefit.

Councillor Williamson asked if loss of light would be caused to nearby properties if the application was approved. Ms Melton reported that the proposal had been assessed in line with the relevant guidelines and it had not been concluded that this would be an issue. Councillor Williamson further questioned if there would be loss of light caused to neighbouring gardens. Mr Dray explained that sunlight and daylight was assessed when reviewing an application. Habitable rooms where given more weight than garden space when assessing loss of light to neighbouring properties. The application had been assessed in line with the relevant guidance. Mr Dray stated that there would likely be some impact to neighbouring gardens but this was not significant enough for Officers to recommend refusal of the application.

Councillor Law referred back to the highways concerns raised and noted that if there had been any doubt, a visit would have been made to the site by Highway Officers. He queried the process used by the Highways Department for assessing the site. Mr Dowding stated that if when viewing a site plan there was any uncertainty, then the first step would be to use Google. A decision would then be taken regarding whether a drive to the area was required. 

Councillor Longton was concerned that the assessment undertaken by Highways was based on a 30mph speed restriction, when this was obviously not being adhered to. Mr Dowding reported that traffic management surveys suggested that traffic might sometimes travel faster than 30mph however, not excessively enough to increase the sight lines beyond the 30mph requirement.

Councillor Geoff Mayes asked Officers to clarify the red line shown on maps of the application site. Ms Melton reported that this was the application site line. Mr Dray further explained that this line referred to the settlement boundary, which followed the road. The hedgerow fell outside of this boundary.

Debate:

Councillor Alan Macro stated that he did not find the application favourable, mainly due to the road safety issues that had been highlighted. At the site visit, he had parked near to the proposed access and vehicles had travelled past at fast speeds. He however acknowledged that if the Highways Officer was satisfied, it would be difficult to go against this view. Councillor Macro was also concerned about the impact of the proposal on number 1 Sykes Gardens and the potential loss of trees and hedgerow. Number 1 Sykes Gardens would see a brick wall 4.8 metres away, which would have a detrimental impact.

Councillor Jo Stewart echoed Councillor Macro’s concerns and struggled to see how the application site would be a comfortable area for anyone to live in. Councillor Stewart had parked near to the site and stated it had been particularly scary given the speed of the traffic passing by. Just because number 1 Sykes Gardens had an access in close proximity to the application site this did not mean it was suitable for another access. Councillor Stewart voiced that she was not supportive of the application and therefore proposed that the application should be refused. Councillor Pask seconded the proposal.

Councillor Pask stated that the proposal would be detrimental to the street scene due to the removal of the rural hedgerow. He was also concerned about the impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor Pask commended the Planning Officer’s report, which was comprehensive however, he was concerned about highway safety. In his view, it would be disingenuous to imply that the sight lines would improve visibility when exiting Maple Lane, looking to the right. Councillor Pask stressed that he was concerned about the removal of the long established hedge line and he was concerned that widening the road would cause traffic to travel faster. Due to the Highways and Tree Officers raising no objections to the proposal it would be difficult to refuse the application on these grounds. Councillor Pask however, felt that the application should be refused due to its detrimental impact on local amenity and neighbouring properties. Councillor Macro concurred that the application would cause overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor Jo Stewart added to her reasons for refusal the detrimental impact on the street scene. Mr Dray asked Members to clarify reason for refusal and the following were summarised: impact on the street scene; scale of the property; removal of a long established hedgerow; urbanising effect; the proposal would be overbearing and finally the impact on amenity.

The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Pask. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

• character and appearance (overdevelopment, street scene, loss of hedgerow), and;
• neighbouring amenity (overbearing effect).