Agenda item

Proposal:	Demolition of side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house.
Location:	West Streatley House, High Street, Streatley
Applicant:	Anita Parratt c/o Maria Peralta, Project Design Studio Ltd
Recommendation:	Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission.

 

The Committee considered two reports (Agenda Items 6(1) and 6(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00221/HOUSE in respect of the demolition of the side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house and concerning Planning Application 20/00222/LBC2 which sought listed building consent.

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

·           The application site was located in the defined settlement boundary of Streatley. The principle of the extension was acceptable subject to compliance with the relevant adopted policies.

·           The Conservation Officer had commented that the existing single storey extension was unsympathetic to the main dwelling for a number of reasons. The Conservation Officer therefore raised no objections to the principle of replacing the existing extension with an improved extension that removed existing issues.

·           The applicant’s motivation for the proposed demolition and rebuilding of the side extension was not a material planning consideration. This application needed to be considered on its own merits.

·           Additional conditions were proposed in the update report for the granting of listed building consent as requested by the Conservation Officer.

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Mr Lloyd Jenkins, objector, and Ms Maria Peralta, agent. These submissions related to both applications.

Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee:

Objector Representation

The written submission of Mr Jenkins was read out as follows:

·           This was a joint submission by 11 separate households of local residents who objected to the applications. Mr Jenkins acted as signatory on their behalf.

·           The objectors had reviewed the committee reports prepared by Ms Lucinda Pinhorne-Smy and made the following further representations to the Members of the Committee:

a. The Planning Officer had rightly dismissed the applicant’s stated primary motivation for these applications – namely to gain temporary access to the rear of the property for building works – as not being a valid basis for planning consent.

b. However, rather than reject the applications on this fundamental basis, the Planning Officer continued to review secondary proposals for minor works to the extension itself. Clearly, the scope of these works did not require the entire extension, a listed building, to be fully demolished and rebuilt; a purpose serving only to achieve the (irrelevant) access described above. As such, objectors did not believe enough emphasis was placed on the excessive nature of the proposals to demolish and rebuild the extension, given only the ancillary works to it.

c. The Committee had a duty to consider the wider impact of individual applications. In this case, two dangerous precedents risked being set:

i. Allowing an unnecessary demolition of a listed building could open the flood gates to similarly excessive applications, contrary to the interests of the Secretary of State; and

ii. Providing the applicant with grounds to pursue a legal case for access across protected land owned by Streatley Parish Council. If consent was granted, the applicant would use temporary access to build a garage and standing area for six cars in the garden; with the extension rebuilt and no front access, the garage’s existence could be used in a legal case to force access to it from the rear, over ground not intended for vehicular use. This too risked opening the flood gates to similar applications.

·           In summary, local residents remained united in their objections to these applications, driven solely by an intent to build to the rear of West Streatley House and force access from that direction, something the community would at no point contemplate.

·           Press coverage in the Reading Chronicle was noted.

Agent Representation

The written submission of Ms Peralta was read out as follows:

·           The single storey northerly extension to be replaced was built in the 1970s as a garage and was refurbished at the turn of the 21st Century to a storage/ancillary space for the Grade II listed building of West Streatley House.

·           The design of the existing extension was poorly constructed and out of character with the main house, with incorrect proportions and inadequate detailing at the eaves where it abutted the house.

·           The current proposal rectified the short-comings of the existing structure whilst aiding the construction of the consented scheme for the rear single storey extension – one project aiding the other. This scheme would:

·         Deliver improvements to the proportions of the street-side elevation to West Streatley House.

·         Enable the build to take place prudently and as drawn.

·         Deliver improved efficiency of the construction process for the consented scheme by the management of construction vehicle movement, where possible, to reduce any potential pressure on the already busy High Street.

·         Enable the construction work to be completed within a satisfactory building programme.

·           West Streatley House was in a sad state of repair and in urgent need of the construction programme commencing. The applicant was keen to occupy the building as her home with the improvements completed. The building would undergo a scheme of consented refurbishment and extension that would benefit the property for many years to come. The programme would include landscaping and general enhancement of the setting, a scheme befitting a Grade II Listed Building of such quality.

·           The consented and recent proposals had been beset by rumours and inaccuracies through social media and the local parties, but had also gained much local support.

·           The applicant was currently living in a rented property and ultimately was wanting to start work on site to be able to live in the house as her main residence and thrive within the local community; where West Streatley House would be allowed to embrace its standing as an asset of Streatley’s High Street.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Alan Law in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·           He commented that the application, to demolish an existing extension and replace with a new extension, appeared straight forward.

·           A key question, as this was a listed building, was whether or not the proposal would enhance the building. The Conservation Officer was of the view that the proposal would be an improvement over the existing extension.

·           Objectors had raised a concern that a main reason for the proposal to demolish the existing extension was to secure temporary access to the rear of the property in order to carry out consented building works. Access to the property from the rear was disputed. The agent’s statement concurred by stating that an ancillary reason for the application was to ‘aid the construction of the consented scheme for the rear storey extension.’ This related to consented application 19/01227/HOUSE.

·           Consented application 19/00878/HOUSE had also received objections. This was for a single storey detached outbuilding comprising a double garage with associated car port and store, and parking for six vehicles at the rear of the house. A particular concern of residents, not mentioned by the agent, was that this scheme would be built despite the ongoing vehicle access dispute to the rear to enable the garage to be used. Planning Officers would likely advise that this was a civil matter and not a planning matter, but Councillor Law felt that this brought the reasoning for today’s planning applications into question.

·           The second main concern of objectors, one that was shared by Councillor Law, was the harmful impact of construction traffic and parking on the High Street. Traffic congestion and parking was the major issue for the village. Traffic measurement work was ongoing prior to the potential implementation of mitigation measures. However, the use by construction vehicles of the few remaining spaces would add to this problem. The delivery of construction materials was also a concern in this regard as traffic flow would be blocked while deliveries took place.

·           These were important points for the Committee to consider.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

In response to a question from Councillor Graham Pask, Councillor Law confirmed that planning permission had been granted for 19/01227/HOUSE and 19/00878/HOUSE, both of which related to the rear of West Streatley House.

Councillor Law also confirmed the view that if the permitted garage was built but not used, this was a legal matter and not a planning matter.

Questions to Officers

Councillor Alan Macro queried whether the Council could enforce the build of the replacement extension once the existing extension had been demolished. Mr Dray explained that completion would not ordinarily be a condition as this would be considered as unreasonable. However, if during the debate, a planning reason was identified for work to take place swiftly then this could be looked at to see if a reasonable condition could be worded.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon referred to the approved planning applications for works to the rear of the property and queried if any conditions for those applications related to this proposed extension. Mr Dray did not believe this would be the case as conditions would need to relate to the application in question.

Councillor Mackinnon then queried the level of consideration that had been and could be given to the impact caused by construction traffic and parking. The construction period could last for a significant period of time. In response, Mr Dray advised that no highways objections had been raised. However, the Committee could look at conditions that would enable some controls over construction traffic and parking during the construction process.

Gareth Dowding, Principal Engineer, agreed that conditions could be added to safeguard existing access points and residents from construction traffic and deliveries.

Councillor Tony Linden queried if the Council would be liable to costs if they refused these two applications. Mr Dray stated that the officer recommendations for approval were reasonably confident based on the merits of the applications. However, if during the debate the issue of costs became a potential concern, then Mr Dray would raise this.

Debate

Councillor Pask opened the debate by stating that he understood the concerns raised by objectors. However, the Committee had to focus on the applications before them. The existing side extension proposed for demolition was not of a good quality. Once demolished, Councillor Pask felt it was likely that the already permitted works would take place to the rear of the property and access would be achieved via the temporary access that would be created. A question would remain about ongoing use of the garage when the replacement extension was built when there appeared to be no legal right of access at the rear of the property, however Councillor Pask did not feel that was a planning consideration for this debate.

Councillor Pask supported the proposal to rebuild the extension to a much higher standard than the existing extension.

He agreed that parking and traffic congestion were particular issues in Streatley and stated that, if approved, it was imperative that delivery of construction materials took place outside of rush hours. Control of construction vehicle parking should also be considered.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam agreed that the proposal would be an improvement on the existing extension. This was particularly important as this was a listed building.

Councillor Macro, at a recent site visit in Streatley, observed that traffic had gridlocked due to a bus being unable to pass a parked vehicle. He therefore agreed that the delivery of construction materials and storage of materials needed to be conditioned. Conditions were also needed to ensure the completion of works within a timescale and to set working hours to limit disruption to neighbouring residents.

Councillor Jo Stewart agreed that conditions should look to ensure that the replacement extension was built. She also agreed that these applications needed to be considered in isolation from the already granted applications.

Councillor Law referred to the agent’s representation. This made reference to only seeking access to the rear for the build of the conservatory extension, but not the car port. Councillor Law queried whether approval of the applications could enable the build of the car port. Mr Dray stated that this would not be part of any permission, should permission be granted, on today’s applications, but there would be nothing to stop them doing so. There were no conditions in the already approved applications that would tie in with a decision notice following today’s meeting. Mr Dray felt that nothing could prevent the applicant from using the access to build the car port once the side extension had been demolished.

Mr Dray then commented on the potential for a completion condition and reiterated the need for this to be reasonable. He felt that a condition preventing demolition until a full scheme of works had been commissioned to complete the demolition and rebuild as a single project may be an appropriate condition. Should Members be minded to approve the application, then Mr Dray felt that they could delegate to officers to form the necessary wording for such a condition. Councillor Law offered to input with local knowledge in terms of setting timescales for works including working hours and delivery hours.

Councillor Pask then proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for planning application 20/00221/HOUSE subject to the additional conditions proposed in relation to needing to commission the full scheme of works before the existing extension was demolished, for a construction method statement, and for time restrictions on construction deliveries and working hours.

Councillor Keith Woodhams seconded the proposal. He queried whether there would be scope for construction workers to park away from the site and be transported in via mini-bus.

Mr Dray then clarified that the proposal was to grant conditional planning permission in accordance with the Officers’ recommendation in the reports, together with three additional conditions on the planning permission: hours of work, hours to make construction deliveries, and for a Construction Method Statement. The Construction Method Statement would incorporate a number of factors into a single plan including parking and unloading of materials. This could potentially encompass the mini bus for construction workers.

Hours of work and deliveries would be restricted to 9.45am – 4.00pm (Monday to Friday) and 8.30am – 1.00pm on Saturdays.

Mr Dray also confirmed that a condition would be formulated that required the commissioning of the full scheme of works before the existing extension was demolished. This would ensure the works took place as a single project. Members would be asked to delegate authority to officers for formulate the wording of this condition.

Delegated authority would also be sought for officers to agree the pre-commencement conditions with the applicant.

Both Councillor Pask as proposer and Councillor Woodhams as seconder were content with the conditions outlined by Mr Dray.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission (pursuant to application 20/00221/HOUSE) subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.  Commencement of development

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.  Approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

1618-L04 (Block Plan), received 28th January 2020

1618-P31 (Existing Elevations), received 28th January 2020

1618-L01 (Location Plan), received 28th January 2020

1618-P30B (Proposed floor plans), received 10th March 2020

1618-P32C (Proposed Elevations), received 10th March 2020

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3.  Samples

No above ground development shall take place until samples and an accompanying schedule of all materials and finishes visible external to the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved samples.

Reason: To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the special qualities of the Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed buildings.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4.  Rainwater goods

All new rainwater goods shall be cast iron painted to match the existing. 

Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

5. Construction method statement

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The CMS shall include measures for:

(a)  Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(b)  Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(c)  Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

(d)  Erection and maintenance of security hoarding including any decorative displays and/or facilities for public viewing;

(e)  Temporary access arrangements to the site, and any temporary hard-standing;

(f)   Wheel washing facilities;

(g)  Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction;

(h)  Hours of construction and demolition work;

(i)    Hours of deliveries and preferred haulage routes.

Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason:   To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).  A pre-commencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations.

6. Hours of work (construction/demolition)

No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

Monday to Fridays: 09:45 to 16:00

Saturdays: 08:30 to 13:00

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

Reason:   To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers and to avoid vehicular conflicts on the public highway.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

7. Delivery hours (construction/demolition)

No deliveries during the delivery phase shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the following hours:

Monday to Fridays: 09:45 to 16:00

Saturdays: 08:30 to 13:00

No deliveries shall be carried out at any times on Sundays or Bank Holidays

Reason:   To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers and minimise the impact on the local road network during peak hours.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

8. Contract for demolition and rebuild

No works for the demolition of the existing side extension shall take place until a valid contract for the carrying out and completion of its full demolition and the erection of the replacement side extension (for which planning permission is hereby granted) has been entered into, and evidence of that contract submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the demolition is followed by rebuilding within a single programme of works to ensure the timely rebuild of the replacement extension, in order to maintain the character and appearance of the grade II listed building and the conservation area.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 

Councillor Pask then proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant listed building consent for planning application 20/00222/LBC2 subject to the conditions in the planning report and the update report. This was seconded by Councillor Woodhams.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.  Commencement of works

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.  Approved plans

This listed building consent relates only to work described on the following drawings:

1618-L04 (Block Plan), received 28th January 2020

1618-P31 (Existing Elevations), received 28th January 2020

1618-L01 (Location Plan), received 28th January 2020

1618-P30B (Proposed floor plans), received 10th March 2020

1618-P32C (Proposed Elevations), received 10th March 2020

The works shall be carried out in strict conformity with the approved plans and associated approved submitted information.

Reason: To clarify what has been approved under this consent in order to protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.

3.  Samples

No above ground development shall take place until samples and an accompanying schedule of all materials and finishes visible external to the building have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Samples shall be made available to be viewed at the site or by arrangement with the Planning Officer.  All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved samples.

Reason: To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4.  Rainwater goods

All new rainwater goods shall be cast iron painted to match the existing. 

Reason:  To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

5.  Making good

All works of making good and repair to the retained fabric, whether internal or external, shall be finished to match original/adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to materials, colours, textures and profiles.  

Reason:  To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

6.  Details of openings

No works to window or door openings shall take place until detailed plans and specifications of such works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such details shall include materials and finishes, at a minimum scale of 1:20 and 1:2.  The windows and doors shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

7.  Details of roof eaves and fascias

No works shall take place to the roof until detailed plans and specifications of the eaves and fascia have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such details shall be provided at a minimum scale of 1:20.  Thereafter the eaves and fascias shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).