Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/02522/FUL in respect of the demolition of a side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house.

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

·         The application had been brought to Committee due to the level of objections and because Officers were recommending permission be granted.

·         The application site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and had no settlement Boundary.

·         The table on page 43 of the report showed comparative dimensions between the existing stable block and proposed building, which highlighted the increase in scale.

·         Originally there had been plans to site a larger building to the west of the site against the boundary. There had however, been concerns raised about the loss of amenity to number five and that it had been positioned directly opposite the listed building. The design of the previous scheme had been considered to be bulky in the proposed position and was slightly taller the current proposal at 3.98 metres height.

·         Regarding the change of use, there was no record of the western end of the site having consent for residential use, hence the proposed change of use was incorporated into this application.

·         The main issues with the application were set out within the report and because the site was outside of the settlement, Planning Policy C6 applied to the application. This policy ensured extensions built in the countryside were subservient to a main dwelling.

·         In the view of Officers the scaling and size of the proposal was subservient to the main dwelling. It would replace a building that was similar in scale.

·         Officers were content regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity and that separation distances were acceptable. Any issues regarding the impact on amenity to number five relating to the previous proposal had been overcome. Any concerns raised by the Conservation Officer had also been overcome.

·         Regarding the extension of the curtilage in the countryside this would ordinarily conflict with Planning Policy C8. However, based on evidence that was consistent with comments in the representations, the area in question had been used as a garden for at least ten years. This would mean that its use as a garden was immune from enforcement action.  The ability for the applicant’s to make a Lawful Development Certificate was therefore a material consideration for this application, including the ability to remove permitted development rights to conserve local character, and this outweighed the conflict in the view of Planning Officers.

·         Regarding the update report, there had been no further representations received. The recommendation regarding the commencement condition had been amended to account for the change of use being retrospective. There was an additional condition to ensure the pedestrian gates were provided before the garage was brought into use.

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 Fullerton, objector.

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

Objector Representation:

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

·         Mr Fullerton was the direct neighbour of Church View Barn and owner of Chalk Pit Cottage.

·         This updated planning application for a new garage (to be clear, not a replacement one, as the current structure is wooden stable block, designed for equestrian use and with a much lower roof line), change of use to residential use, associate parking and landscaping was an improvement to the previous planning application siting which I objected to (and so did a further 10 residents), as the new proposed location had been moved away from being opposite to our Grade II listed cottage and nearer to the main building of the property. However, Mr Fullerton believed the Committee should still consider that this application was a fundamental change to the workings of the property, with a change to the main driveway and thus a change to how the original planning application for the build of the house was approved (some 12 years ago). Mr Fullerton had concerns about the change of use of the paddock area to residential use and if this was approved it must come with restrictions on any further building on the land whatsoever (I would not think it fair if this application was then only used for getting the change of use, followed by a new planning application to position the garage at the previous location).

·         Mr Fullerton was also of the view that the Committee should consider how this planning design for the property was applied for in two parts, firstly by gaining planning application for the conversion of the existing internal garages into living accommodation and only then later applying for separate planning permission for this detached garage. This had been tried unsuccessfully by another new build near our property (Blossom Cottage) and this new application might set some precedent for such a method of getting new detached garages built, especially at the other property.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Graham Pask in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         What had been read out from Mr Fullerton, who represented the neighbours who lived opposite the application site, clearly reflected the concerns of residents.

·         There had been much improvement from the original scheme, in that the proposed building would be positioned lower; would be smaller in size and was set back closer to the property itself, positioning it further away from the row of terraced houses.

·         Councillor Pask thanked Planning Officers for the comprehensive report.

·         Main concerns stemmed from development of the site that had happened 12 years previously, when the dwelling on the site had almost doubled in size. Recently the double garage had been converted into living space for the main house.

·         The plot was located in the countryside where there were many bridleways. There were many riding establishments in the local area and many properties had stables/paddocks for equestrian use. Councillor Pask was concerned about the change of use of the land to domestic curtilage.

·         It had been reported to the Committee that the land in question had been used for domestic use in excess of ten years. He highlighted that this was where concerns had stemmed from.

·         Councillor Pask was interested to hear the Committee’s view of the application.

·         The current application was a huge improvement from the original scheme however, he sympathised with the concerns raised by residents.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

There were no Member questions. 

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Alan Macro stated that he had viewed the site on Google StreetView and it seemed that the stable block had already been demolished. Councillor Macro queried if this was the case and if it would impact on the context of the application.

Mr Dray stated that he was not aware that the stable block had already been demolished and queried the date of the image Councillor Macro had viewed. Mr Dray stated that he would check the image that Councillor Macro was referring to and report back to Members. Councillor Pask stated that he was also not aware that the stable block had been demolished. Mr Dray stated that if the Committee resolved to grant planning permission and it was subsequently found the stable block had been demolished, then any necessary minor amendments to conditions could be made under delegated authority in consultation with the Chairman.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam queried if there were any further stables on the site. Mr Dray stated the existing stables were the only stables on the site. If in the future there was a desire for a stable block on the land then this would need to be considered on its own merits however, previous extensions would help inform any decision making. Councillor Cottam referred to points raised by Councillor Pask regarding the eradication of good use of the countryside. He felt that it would be helpful to advise the applicant that the Council would be concerned about any future applications for further stables.

Councillor Alan Law stated that the report made the point that the original building was half the size of the dwelling that was erected on the site in 2008. Councillor Law felt that any extension should be judged against the original building that stood on the site prior to 2008. He noted that the report highlighted that the application contradicted planning policy however, stated that mitigation had taken place. Councillor Law queried the mitigation argument and asked for clarification. Mr Dray clarified that the starting point for assessing this application was against Policy C6, including whether the proposal was subservient to the original dwelling, and that the “original dwelling” in this specific policy context would be the replacement dwelling as built circa 2008, not the former dwelling that preceded it.  However, he also advised that the historical growth of built form on the site was also relevant as a material consideration. 

Councillor Law sought further clarification. In 2008 the building had been increased in size by 108% and he asked if he was correct in understanding that the building size prior to this increase could not be judged against. Mr Dray stated that in terms of the interpretation of Policy C6 the term ‘original as built’ must be taken as the new dwelling in its original form. Members could however, also consider growth over time if they believed it to be relevant. Section 6.9 of the report had taken into account the overall growth on the site and that the replacement dwelling in 2008 was a 108% increase in floor space compared to the dwelling that originally stood on the site prior to 2008. This section of the report also considered the character of the area and the scale of other buildings in the vicinity. All elements had supported Officers in making a decision regarding the proposal. Councillor Law confirmed that he was satisfied with the response from Mr Dray and the information contained in section 6.9 of the report.

Councillor Pask referred to the percentage increases that had once been used in planning and as far as he understood these increases were not supposed to be incremental. He noted that the dwelling on the site was already 108% larger than what had originally stood on the site. There was now a proposal to change the stable into a garage and therefore further increasing the domestication of the site and its character. Councillor Pask asked if it was irrelevant to the application that there had already been an increase of 108% from a small cottage on the site. Mr Dray stated that it was not irrelevant however that application was compliant to policy, regarding subserviency, design and being in-keeping. Officers had viewed other material considerations and it was felt that the proposal was acceptable.

Debate:

Councillor Tony Linden stated that he had listened to the view of the Officer and of the Ward Member and he was minded to support approval of the application. He proposed that Members agree the recommendation by Officers to grant planning permission.

Councillor Cottam voiced his concern about the application and felt that the historical aspect that had been discussed must be taken into consideration when making a decision. He was concerned about the level of growth on the site given the rural location. He felt that the applicant had deliberately sought to change the use of the original garage into living space and now wanted to resolve this by creating a garage that was double the size.

Councillor Macro concurred with Councillor Cottam. He had viewed the current Google satellite view of the site and the stable block was present however, the street view for 2010 showed that it was not there at that point. Councillor Macro felt concerned about the amount of building that had taken place on the site and felt that it was stretching planning policy to its limit.

Councillor Keith Woodhams stated that he had listened to the debate and was happy to second the proposal by Councillor Linden.

Councillor Pask queried if Councillor Linden’s proposal was subject to the removal of permitted development rights on the site and Councillor Linden concurred with Councillor Pask. Mr Dray stated that such matters were captured by the conditions in the recommendation.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Linden, seconded by Councillor Woodhams. At the vote the motion was refused.

Councillor Macro proposed that planning permission be refused, against the recommendation by Officers due to accumulation of development on the site and because the application conflicted with planning policies for the countryside. This was seconded by Councillor Cottam.

Mr Dray summarised that essentially the proposal failed to respect the character and appearance of the area and summarised the reasons for refusal including the amount of extensions that had taken place over time on the site; the effect on the character of the area with respect to rurality and because the proposal was against Planning Policy C6 and other linked polices.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Macro, seconded by Councillor Cottam to refuse planning permission. 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:

1)    The application site is located in an area of open countryside within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The host dwelling is itself a substantial replacement dwelling that has doubled the amount of built form at the site since 2007.  The integral garage has subsequently been converted to additional living accommodation.  The site is therefore particularly sensitive to further inappropriate forms of development.

2)    Owing to its location, size, height, scale, massing, character and appearance, the proposed building would not be an appropriate development in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character.  The cumulative effect of the existing development on the site and the new development proposal would be to detract from the rural character and appearance of the area.

3)    The proposal therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C1, C3 and C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, the Stanford Dingley Parish Design Statement (2010), Part 2 of the Council’s adopted Quality Design SPD (2006) and the Council’s House Extensions SPG.