Agenda item

(Councillor Alan Law explained that he had asked Councillor Alan Macro, as Vice-Chairman, to Chair Agenda Item 4(1). This was not a declaration of interest and Councillor Law had not pre-determined the item, but he did have a different interpretation of some aspects of the officer’s report that he wished to comment on and did not feel it would be appropriate to do so from the Chair.)

(Councillor Alan Macro in the Chair).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/00723/FULD in respect of an application for a new dwelling and relocated access.

Removal of Speaking Rights

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was 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.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Ian Parsons, Parish Council representative, and from Mr Graham Starkins, Mr William Howard and Mrs Camille Howard, objectors.

Parish Council Representation

The written submission of Basildon Parish Council was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                     The Parish Council had objected to the building of a house at the rear of Timberley on each occasion that the application had been made. The location of the proposal, the garden site, was the central reason for these objections. Pangbourne Road did have some housing behind the main pattern of housing parallel with the road but these buildings had minimal impact upon immediate neighbours, unlike this proposal which would overlook a number of houses in the vicinity, and would change the character of this part of the village.

·                     There were many grounds for objection to this proposal outlined by a very wide range of residents in their individual submissions. The Parish Council was particularly concerned about the following.

1.         There would be an increase in cars using the relatively small access point onto Pangbourne Road.

2.         The rear of the proposed construction consisted of a series of paddocks and a wood: the proposed construction would intrude upon the natural landscape.

3.         There was a continuing concern that the site would cross the settlement boundary.

4.         Building in the back garden of properties had been opposed consistently by the Parish Council and by residents. One of the remarkable features of this application was how little space was available for building, and parking, and how cramped the site would be if approval was granted.

5.         Access to the proposed building between Southcroft and Timberley was very narrow. Should the application be passed it might well establish a pattern for more ‘infill’ applications in this area as well as the possibility of further encroachment into the settlement boundary.

6.         At least four neighbouring properties would be immediately affected both in terms of loss of privacy and in the direct impact upon the rear of these properties.

7.         The proposal was out of character with the general pattern of building and plots in the immediate area.

8.         Application 20/00723 was not significantly different from the previous applications, all of which had been refused by the Planning Committee.

Member Questions of the Parish Council

(Mr Parsons was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee)

Councillor Graham Pask queried the concerns raised of potential encroachment beyond the settlement boundary when the Planning Officer had confirmed that the site fell within the boundary. Mr Parsons acknowledged that the plans showed this proposal as being within the settlement boundary. However, the concern was that the proposal abutted the site boundary and the owner of Timberley also owned land to the rear of the site. Therefore, there was concern of informal extensions to the rear of the application site that could encroach upon the rear boundary.

Objectors Representation

The written summarised submission of the objectors was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                  There was disagreement with the findings of the Committee report, the dwelling Elangani was not comparable to the proposal scheme as it was in a significantly larger plot with a private access, and the development at Knapps Wood was not comparable as it was a substantially larger plot with its own access to the cul-de-sac.

·                  The proposed scheme was for a substantial dwelling squeezed to the rear of the host dwelling with no private access. The location plan showed how unusual, cramped and at odds with the neighbouring properties the proposed development would be. By allowing this application, the Council would set a precedent for dwellings to be built in any private, rear garden along the Pangbourne Road. Was this a precedent the Council wished to set?

·                  Two previous applications had been refused and dismissed at appeal. As stated by the Inspector in the 2017 appeal, ‘development at this location would have an unacceptable urbanisation effect’ and this would have an ‘adverse effect on landscape character and scenic beauty of the AONB’. This had not been mitigated by this latest application.

·                  Paragraph 6.16 of the Committee report stated that the proposed application would have a reduced impact on the local environment because the proposed design had a lower mass than the previous application. However, paragraph 1.8 showed the proposed dimensions of the design had increased rather than decreased. The previous application had a maximum height of 6.8m and a footprint of 83.8sq.m. This application had both a greater maximum height of 7.3m and a larger footprint of 99.5sq. m. This meant the adverse impact on the landscape, character and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB) was greater than the previous application.

·                  Many of the photographs submitted were inaccurately labelled. They had been taken from the adjoining open countryside; land that lay outside of the settlement boundary, and did not form part of the planning application. This made the site appear much larger than it was. For example, the photographs labelled ‘existing structure on site’ contained a structure that lay outside of the planning application site and the photograph labelled ‘within the site looking west’ was taken from a position approximately 10m outside the site and the village settlement boundary. 

·                  Approving this application would result in the overdevelopment of a cramped site, with no private access, which would ruin the landscape, character and scenic beauty of the NWDAONB. Building a four-bedroom house in the back garden of Timberley’s modest plot was totally opposed to the rural nature of the surrounding area. To repeat the appeal Inspectors words, ‘development at this location would have an unacceptable urbanisation effect’. The slight amendments to this latest scheme had not changed this.

·                  There were concerns raised regarding the grubbing up of a mature orchard providing various wildlife habitats just before the very first planning application was submitted where in that application the space the orchard had occupied until a week or so before was what was considered disingenuously described as "garden".

·                  Attention should be paid to the Basildon Village Design Statement.

Ward Member Representation

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

·                     He pointed out, from the planning history, that two previous applications to build a house in the rear garden had been refused. Both of these decisions had been upheld at appeal.

·                     Both Planning Inspectors had commented on the importance of the setting and character of the site in the AONB and within the local landscape. The Officer’s report did state that the design of the two previous refusals had been criticised. However, the Officer view was that the changes made for this application were enough to address this criticism. In relation to this point, Councillor Law advised that the height of the proposed dwelling was unchanged from the previously refused scheme and the footprint was slightly larger. There was a reduction in bulk as the dwelling had been reduced to 1.5 storeys, but he questioned whether this still constituted overdevelopment.

·                     Councillor Law did not feel that the report addressed the Planning Inspector comments in relation to the impact on the setting and character of the AONB and the local landscape. He made specific reference to comments made in the Planning Inspectorate appeal decision. The decision commented on the need for an application in this area to have an acceptable relationship to the adjoining open countryside and landscape setting. In the Inspector’s view, the previous proposal would result in a more built up and enclosed appearance to the appeal site and its environment. The decision stated that the application considered at appeal ‘would fail to protect the setting of the AONB and therefore its special landscape character and scenic beauty, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)’. Councillor Law therefore queried whether the design had changed enough to reduce the impact on the AONB and the local landscape.

·                     Councillor Law had further questions in relation to the access to the paddock at the rear of the property. Who owned the access and how would it be utilised?

Member Questions of the Ward Member

Councillor Pask queried the dimensions of the proposal. The written submission of the objectors stated that while a comparison had been made with the dimensions of the first refused application, the same had not been provided for the second refused application. The objector stated that the maximum height had increased from 6.8m to 7.3m and the footprint showed an increase from 83.8sq.m to 99.5sq.m. He queried the accuracy of these figures alongside noting Councillor Law’s comments on this point.

Councillor Law advised that he took his view, i.e. that the height was unchanged and that the footprint was slightly larger, from the officer’s report as the measurements were not made clear on the plans.

Questions to Officers

Councillor Pask queried if a comparison could be made between the dimensions of the second refused application and this proposed scheme. Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, referred Members back to the plans in her presentation which gave the dimensions of both of the refused applications.

Debate

Councillor Pask referred to the location plan on page 65 of the agenda pack. This showed in outline the site layout and size of Timberley and its neighbours, and also that of the Knappswood Close dwellings. It had been suggested that the Knappswood Close properties had undergone back garden development, but these were located within deeper plots than those of Timberley. Councillor Pask felt that the location of the Timberley property and its immediate neighbours had its own unique character.

Councillor Pask had given very careful consideration to the two appeal decisions relating to this site and he drew attention to a point made in the 2018 appeal decision that ‘the adverse effect on landscape character and scenic beauty of the AONB carries with it great weight. This would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits that have been identified.’

Councillor Pask added that he recalled the location from past site visits and he felt that if approval was given then this new dwelling would be squeezed in. He acknowledged that minimum distance requirements between properties might be achieved, but this was within the AONB. He was not supportive of the officer recommendation for approval.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam commented that the current view from the AONB was of the rear of Timberley and neighbouring properties. The Knappswood Close properties were closer in that respect. Councillor Cottam felt that the Knappswood Close dwellings had set a precedent. He did not therefore feel that the application could be refused based on the impact to the AONB.

He added that the reduced bulk from previous applications was an improvement and additional car journeys created by the development would not be significant.

Councillor Cottam was of the view that the applicant had done just enough on balance to overcome the concerns raised by the proposal.

Councillor Jo Stewart noted that the parking area of Timberley and that of its immediate neighbours were at the front of the properties. This proposal would change that as traffic would need to pass Timberley and the dwelling to its left. Cars to the proposed dwelling would therefore need to travel past neighbouring gardens. Councillor Stewart was concerned therefore at the impact on existing residents as there would be a negative impact on their peaceful garden space.

Councillor Stewart did not feel that a precedent had been set as none of the neighbouring properties were accessed via rear gardens.

Councillor Stewart concluded her comments by giving her view that this was overdevelopment on a relatively small piece of land.

Councillor Law referred back to the point made by Councillor Cottam that, on balance, the application could not be refused due to the impact on the AONB. Councillor Law stated that this had not been the view of two Planning Inspectors who considered earlier applications at appeal. They both felt that the application would negatively impact the AONB. The Planning Officer view was that this proposal was slightly smaller and therefore had less of an impact, but he reiterated that this application was almost identical in terms of height and had a slightly larger footprint.

On comparisons to Knappswood Close, Councillor Law clarified that the second row of houses shown on the plan were not back garden developments, instead a large field had been built out into a cul-de-sac.

Councillor Law also stated that if permission was granted, then Timberley and the new property would be the only properties that shared an access. It would therefore not be in keeping with the rest of the street scene.

Councillor Pask proposed refusal of the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on the basis that the application would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and scenic beauty of this part of the AONB. The proposal constituted overdevelopment, it was therefore out of character and out of keeping with the immediate neighbouring properties. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Stewart.

Bob Dray, Development Control Team Leader, clarified the reasons for refusal prior to the vote.

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

1. The application site is located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), wherein great weight is given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty. The dwellings sited along this section of Pangbourne Road are set within long, narrow, rectangular gardens which create a sense of spaciousness within the rear gardens. The dwellings generally follow an established building line with properties fronting onto the highway. The generous plot to dwelling ratio, nature of the properties and their position within the site, which are set back from the highway, contributes towards an open spacious character. Whilst there are examples of backland development in the wider area, the immediate vicinity features gardens of smaller depth. Two previous appeals have been dismissed in light of objections to design and impact on the AONB. Owing to the size and scale of the proposed building, the ratio with its uncharacteristically small plot, and the uncharacteristic access and parking arrangements, the proposed development would result a cramped form of overdevelopment which fails to respect the established residential character and rural spatial characteristics of the locality. The proposed development would have an adverse visual impact and detract from the setting of village with the adjoining open countryside.

As such, the application conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C1 and C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, the Council's adopted Quality Design SPD (Part 2), the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, the North Wessex Downs Position Statement on Housing, and the Basildon Village Design Statement.

Informatives

1 In attempting to determine the application in a way that can foster the delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority has approached this decision in a positive way having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to try to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application the local planning authority has attempted to work proactively with the applicant to find a solution to the problems with the development, however; an acceptable solution to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area could not be found.

2 This application has been considered by West Berkshire Council, and REFUSED. Should the application be granted on appeal there will be a liability to pay Community Infrastructure Levy to West Berkshire Council on commencement of the development. This charge would be levied in accordance with the West Berkshire Council CIL Charging Schedule and Section 211 of the Planning Act 2008.