Agenda item

Proposal:	Two-storey front and side extension over basement to create granny annexe and carers room. Change of use of associated land to provide two additional ancillary parking spaces.
Location:	Tree Tops, Hampstead Norreys, Thatcham, RG18 0TE
Applicant:	Mrs & Mr Humphreys
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions’

 

(No declarations of interest received.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01914/FUL in respect of a two-storey front and side extension over basement to create granny annexe and carers room. Change of use of associated land to provide two additional ancillary parking spaces at Tree Tops, Hampstead Norreys.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Western Area Planning, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader - Highways Development Control, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard confirmed that in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, there would be a requirement for additional car parking, as the number of bedrooms had been increased from three to five. He noted there had been objections to the proposed location of the spaces due to its distance from the property, however it was as close to the property as could reasonably be achieved without the need for extensive additional track work, and this was not a reason for refusal. He confirmed that the proposed spaces would meet all standards, including provision of an electric vehicle charging point. He noted concerns about land ownership, but this was not a planning issue. He confirmed that Highways officers supported the provision of parking spaces as the area was congested, they therefore had no objections.

Removal of speaking rights

4.     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 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.

5.     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.

6.     No written submissions relating to this application were received.

Ward Member Representation

7.     Councillor Culver confirmed that she did not wish to address the Committee on this application. She noted that she had called in a previous application, which had been subsequently withdrawn, however she was waving right to speak on this application as she had not been approached in relation to this one.

Members’ Questions to Officers

8.     Councillor Howard Woollaston asked for clarification as to the location of the proposed parking spaces. Mr Till displayed a photo showing the entrance to the track and confirmed that the spaces would be located at the point from which the photo had been taken.

9.     Councillor Hilary Cole asked about the ownership of the proposed site of the parking spaces. Mr Till stated that the blue line showed land within the applicant’s ownership, but outside of the residential curtilage.

10.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted the considerable incline where the parking spaces were proposed and asked if this would be excavated and affect access via the track. Mr Goddard indicated that retaining structures would be required, but considered that there would be sufficient space to retain use of the agricultural track with the spaces in place, due to the width of the track as it joined the public right of way alongside the public house.

11.  The Chairman asked about the dimensions of the track. Councillor Barnett suggested that it may be difficult to turn in and out of the track with the parking spaces in place, especially if there was a car parked at the back of the pub. Mr Goddard confirmed that the width of the track was 10.7m where it joined the right of way and the spaces would be 4.8m wide, so there would be sufficient space for the track to be kept open.

12.  With regards to the gradient, Mr Goddard suggested that a condition be sought asking for construction details of the parking spaces, including levels and retaining structures, to be submitted for approval prior to construction.

13.  Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the blue line shown on the plan passed through a tree and queried whether the width of the tree had been taken into account with regards to the width of the track. Councillor Abbs noted that it was an agricultural track, however he could not see an obvious gate or entrance to the fields. In relation to the house itself, he asked for officers’ responses to the queries raised in the letters of objection regarding the 1.6m reduction, whether the decking area was included in the calculations and within the building line. Mr Till advised the Committee that, as this was an in-settlement application for the extension of an existing building, proportionality was irrelevant. He suggested that it was more important to consider whether the design was in keeping with the character and appearance of the area or resulted in other detrimental impacts, not the amount of extension that was proposed. He confirmed that the decking and terracing were ‘built form’ and would therefore have an impact.

14.  Councillor Abbs noted the comments in one of the objection letters that referred to a reduction of 1.6m, but he could not find evidence of this. Mr Till was not aware of this.

15.  Councillor Abbs asked about the vehicles that would use the track in future as it was an agricultural track. The Chairman noted that the applicant had bought the track to secure access to his property and asked if it was likely that farm vehicles would use the track in future to access adjacent fields. Mr Goddard suggested that it could be used by a tractor and trailer since the track was quite wide.

16.  The Chairman suggested that the landowner would be able to move their parked cars to facilitate access if they needed access for larger vehicles. Councillor Abbs agreed that this would not be an issue if the land was completely within the owner’s curtilage, but asked if there was access required to adjacent fields. Councillor Tony Vickers highlighted paragraph 7.4 of the report, which confirmed that the neighbouring farmer had an established right of access to two gates and fields.

17.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked about the route to be used for construction traffic noting the steep gradient of the footpath, which passed the front door of at least one other property. She was concerned that if construction traffic were to use the track to the rear of the property, the adjacent trees might be damaged. Mr Till explained that a condition was recommended requiring a construction management plan, which would be used to secure appropriate access for deliveries of construction materials. This would be considered by Highways officers.

18.  Councillor Culver noted that a previous application for a replacement building had been rejected, but the applicant had carried out the works anyway, and an ancient hedge that had been lost had not been restored. She asked if a condition could be imposed on this application to restore the hedge and what could be done to prevent further unauthorised works. 

19.  Mr Till explained that carrying out works without planning permission was unauthorised rather than unlawful. Planning legislation allowed for retrospective applications and also enabled planning authorities to carry out enforcement action for unauthorised works that resulted in material harm. He stated that there was no condition that could be applied to introduce a warning about unauthorised works. He suggested that reinstatement of the ancient hedge was outside the scope of this application and imposing a condition would be unnecessary and unreasonable and would fail to meet tests set out in the NPPF and would be susceptible to appeal.

20.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that an objector had mentioned parking outside of the settlement boundary. Mr Goddard confirmed that Highways had no concerns.

Debate

21.  Councillor Vickers opened the debate. He had visited the site and felt that the key issue was the parking. He suggested that access to the fields was a private matter between the applicant and the farmer. He suggested that it was important to look carefully at the construction management plan, since access to the site was restricted. The track was the only viable means of access for heavy construction traffic, but it was muddy and had a steep turn. He suggested that the parking spaces would be the last element to be constructed, but the building could not be occupied until they were in place. He suggested that there might be a subsequent application to waive the condition for the parking if the farmer was unable to access the fields. He asked for an amendment to the construction management plan to protect users of the public right of way and avoid a path closure.

22.  Councillor Culver asked if a condition could be imposed to ensure the track was left in good order following construction. She stressed the need to protect tree roots from compaction and noted that while Condition 10 protected trees adjacent to the track, it did not mention tree protection around the parking spaces. She welcomed the proposed provision for off-road parking for the site.

23.  Councillor Barnett expressed reservations about the construction phase. He suggested that only a four wheel drive vehicle could access the rear of the property as a standard seven tonne vehicles would have some difficulties. He noted that the granny annex would be used by an elderly or infirm person and questioned if emergency service vehicles would be able to reach the property. He suggested that it would difficult to refuse permission, but there were important points that the applicant needed to addressed.

24.  Councillor Abbs indicated that he was uncomfortable with the application. He noted that not all of the detailed information he had sought had been provided and he would prefer to defer the decision, however he could not come up with a clear reason for refusal.

25.  The Chairman summarised the concerns discussed and asked Members to consolidate the required conditions prior to a proposal. He offered up conditions in relation to a construction management plan, access to the public right of way, tree protection and restoration of the track.

26.  Councillor Abbs asked about the restoration of the hedge as mentioned by Councillor Culver. Mr Till confirmed that the hedge did not fall within the scope of the works for which permission was sought and so could not be conditioned.

27.  The Chairman asked if separate enforcement action could be undertaken. Mr Till offered to raise it with Planning Enforcement, but suggested that it might be more appropriate to refer to the Tree Officer as it did not involve development work.

28.  Councillor Culver asked that the condition for restoration of the track be clarified to say the ground of the track and the trees that surrounded it.

29.  The Chairman asked what could be done if a tree was damaged. Councillor Culver suggested that trees should be replaced if knocked down or severely damaged.

30.  The Chairman asked how tree roots could be protected. Mr Till suggested that the tree protection conditions could be amended to address Councillor Culver’s concerns. He was confident that the condition could be used to require that any trees damaged would have to be replaced by specimens of a similar variety.

31.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report, and those proposed in the Committee to address issues identified by Members. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers, who also requested that details should be made publicly available for any earth retention structures for the parking spaces that were agreed with officers.

32.  Mrs Sharon Armour suggested there should be a separate condition to deal with the plan for parking spaces and the gradient. Mr Goddard agreed and suggested a separate condition requiring the gradient in and around the proposed parking spaces and details of any retaining structures to be submitted for approval prior to commencement. Councillors Hilary Cole and Tony Vickers confirmed their support for this amendment to the proposal.

33.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission 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:

- LC-PL-01 (Rev17A) Location plan

- EX-ELV-01 (Rev17) Existing elevations

- EX-PL-01 (Rev17) Existing floor and roof plan

- EX-SPL-01 (Rev19) Existing site/block plan

- EX-3D-01 (Rev17) 3D view of existing

- BLC-PL-01 (Rev17A) Proposed Block plans (including visibility splays)

- PR-ELV-01 (Rev19) Proposed Elevations

- PR-PL-01 (Rev19) Proposed floor and roof plans

- PRSPL-01 (Rev19) Proposed site plan

- PR-3D-01 (Rev18) Proposed 3D view

- SEC-AA-01 (Rev19) Section A-A

- SEC-AA-BB-01 (Rev19) Section A-A & B-B

- SEC-AA-01 (Rev19) Section E-E

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

3.     Materials as specified and to match

The external materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms. Where stated that materials shall match the existing, those materials shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials respond to local character and appearance. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD (Part 2, June 2006), and House Extensions SPG 04/2 (July 2004).

4.     Boundary treatment

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details, to include a plan, indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected on the south side of the site bounding the garden of the dwelling ‘Mountain Ash’ has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the extension hereby permitted is first bought into use. The approved boundary treatment shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In the interests of ensuring proper treatment of the boundary between the two sites upon the completion of development in the interests of protecting neighbouring amenity. Insufficient information currently accompanies the application to be able to determine these details at this stage. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

5.     CONS1 - Construction method statement (Amended)

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  The statement shall provide for:

 

(a)    The 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)    Wheel washing facilities

(e)    Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

(f)     A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste/spoil resulting from demolition, excavation and construction works

(g)    A site set-up plan during the works

(h)   Measures to prevent encroachment of the development onto the Public Right of Way (PROW)

(i)     A schedule of any works required to be undertaken to restore the agricultural track shown outlined in blue on the approved plans to its original condition following completion of the works hereby approved.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

A pre-commencement condition is required because insufficient information on construction methodology accompanies the application and this information is required in order to ensure that construction does not result in a detrimental impact on highway safety and neighbouring amenity.

6.     Visibility splays for private drives

The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres have been provided at the junction of the proposed parking spaces and the adjacent footway. Dimensions shall be measured along the edge of the driveway/access and the back of the footway from their point of intersection. The visibility splays shall, thereafter, be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above carriageway level.

Reason: To enable pedestrians to see emerging vehicles and to be seen by its driver. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

7.     Parking/turning in accord with plans

The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking and turning spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking of private motor cars at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

8.     Residential annex use

The extension hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Tree Tops. The extension shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit and no separate curtilage shall be created.

Reason: The creation of a separate planning unit would be unacceptable in the interests of ensuring a sustainable pattern of development and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS13 CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), House Extensions SPG (2004).

9.     Electric Charging Point

The development hereby permitted shall not be bought into use until details of an electric vehicle charging point are submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The charging point shall thereafter be installed as approved and kept available for the use of an electric vehicle.

Reason: To promote the use of electric vehicles. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

10.  Tree protection scheme (Amended)

No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment in addition to a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing.  All such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees that become significantly damaged as a result of the development shall be replaced with a similar species within the first planting season after the development is completed and shall be replaced within the first two years thereafter should any become seriously ill or die.

Note: The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of  the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; tree protection installation, other measures and works may be required to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place. 

11.  Arboricultural Method Statement

No development or other operations shall commence on site until an arboricultural method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection and any special construction works within any defined tree protection area.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

A pre-commencement condition is required as insufficient details of arboricultural methodology have been provided with the application and in order to ensure that all arboricutural works are carried out in an appropriate manner that does not result in undue impacts to trees and shrubs to be retained through the course of development.

12.  Hard surfacing (Amended)

No development shall commence on site until details of the proposed parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Details, to include a plan, shall indicate the scope of the engineering/excavation works, gradient, surfacing treatment, and any other retaining structures on land on and around the proposed spaces. The parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme before the extension hereby permitted is first occupied. The approved hard surfacing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved scheme.

 

Reason:  In the interests of ensuring the proposed spaces respect character of the area and ensuring the choice of material does not adversely impact nearby trees.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS14, CS18, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C8 and P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD, Policies TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). 

A pre-commencement condition is required because these details were determined at the Western Area Planning Committee to be a material consideration in the acceptability of the development. On the advice of highway officers, the resolution was for these matters to be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

13.  Hours of work (construction)

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

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining rural land uses and occupiers. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy CS14 CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026).

Informatives

1.     Approval – need for revision

This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.     CIL Liability

The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure. A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice. You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges. For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil

3.     Damage to footways, cycleways and verges

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

4.     Damage to the carriageway

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.