Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/00236/HOUSE in respect of a single storey rear extension.

Ms Donna Toms introduced the report and highlighted the key points. There had been over ten letters of objection to the proposal and Officers were recommending approval of the application.

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, a written submission relating to this application was received from Mr Anthony Cogan, Agent.

Agent Representation

The written submission of Mr Anthony Cogan was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·         Your Officer’s report comprehensively sets out the planning considerations and associated planning balance. This proposal is supported by Officers with an unequivocal recommendation to approve this application.

·         The site is located within the settlement boundary of Upper Basildon, a location washed over by the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Your Officer’s report confirms that the proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies and thus the principle of developing the site is acceptable.

·         Neighbour and Parish Council representations are noted. The thrust of objectors comments relate to the alleged impact on the amenity of immediate neighbours.

·         Considering the scheme design, land uses and separation distances I submit that this proposal will not result in neighbouring properties been overlooked or overshadowed. The proposed extension is a single storey extension located adjacent to the boundary wall with the neighbouring property.

·         Windows serving the proposed extension face into the private garden of the application site. The proposed development is a single storey extension within the existing rear garden, which, due to the slope of the original land, is set down well below the neighbour fence lines. The garden is bounded by high walls, fences and soft landscaping, all of which effectively screens the site from all neighbouring properties. There are no views out of the site due to the height of the boundary enclosures surrounding the existing garden.

·         It is also noteworthy that the neighbouring property of 3 Bethesda Street has a similar single storey extension projecting along the common boundary between the application site and 3 Bethesda Street. This existing neighbouring extension affords additional screening and amenity protection for the neighbouring occupier.

·         With regard to the size of the proposed built form your Officer’s report confirms that the overall footprint will not represent overdevelopment of the site.

·         The ratio of building to garden curtilage is consistent with the urban grain of properties in this area and the proposal is entirely compliant with the policy aims and objectives of the adopted Local Plan.

·         There are other concerns that the neighbours have raised in relation to this application, in terms of drains, party walls and retaining walls. These matters are all beyond the remit of the planning process and should not influence the decision of the Committee.

·         It is hoped that Councillors will support their Officer’s recommendation and approve this application.

Ward Member Representation:

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

·         The site had a chequered history and had caused consternation amongst neighbours because an approved extension from 2015 had been built that was not according to the approved plans. It had eventually gained consent through a certificate of lawfulness in 2020. Some of the issues that had been raised regarding drainage had been included in comments from objectors. Councillor Law reminded Members however, that they needed to consider the planning application before them rather than the history.

·         The Parish Council had unfortunately missed the deadline for a submissions however, it was clear from their comments that they objected to the application in terms of overdevelopment of the site.

·         Comments from objectors had also been raised stating that the proposed extension would not be subservient to the new dwelling and Councillor Law expressed sympathy for this point. Councillor Law stated that this was the reason why he had asked for the drawing showing the elevation to be re-shown during the Planning Officer’s presentation.

·         Other comments stated that the proposal did not respect the character of the existing building and Councillor Law expressed his sympathy for this view point. He felt that a site visit would have been particularly helpful for Members in this instance as it would have provided a full perspective on neighbouring amenity and setting of the proposed extension.

·         Councillor Law was interested in the fact that two outbuildings, a utility room and a plant room, would be incorporated inside the flat roof extension but their pitched roofs would protrude outside of it. When looking at plans it could be seen that the access from the plant room, which contained equipment such as lawn mowers, would no longer be accessed via the garden but via a sitting room area. Councillor Law felt that the application contained a peculiar set of proposals and this, along with the history of the site, was the cause of concern for neighbours.

·         As Ward Member, Councillor Law stated that he was leaning towards the view that the extension was not subordinate or sympathetic to the character of the main building however, he wished to remain open minded and wanted to hear from other Members of the Committee on the application before he finalised his opinion.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

Councillor Graham Pask noted that Councillor Law referred to a plant room and queried if this was actually a boiler room. Councillor Law stated that he would ask Planning Officer’s to clarify this point.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that Councillor Law had alluded to the previous extension not being built in accordance with the plans and he queried if this was the same property. Councillor Law confirmed that it was.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Keith Woodhams asked Officers to comment on the matters raised by Councillor Law. Councillor Law confirmed that this had included concerns of the building not being subordinate to the main building or in keeping in terms of character. Planning Officer, Mr Bob Dray, commented that in terms of subservience and overdevelopment there were no rules in relation to percentage increases and it was a matter of judgement. Normally Officers would take into account the size, height, footprint, massing and materials of a proposal and these were all relevant considerations. Mr Dray stated that with a single storey extension there could often be quite a large footprint and because of the low height it did not compete with the host dwelling. It was recognised that the proposal included a large footprint but the height was low with a flat roof. The wall between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property, number three Bethesda Street, helped the proposal adapt to the courtyard arrangement. Taking into account the relevant considerations such as height and scale, the judgement from Officers was that the proposal was adequately subservient. Regarding materials, Mr Dray stated that using contrasting materials could be a way of emphasising the subservience of a proposal.

Councillor Pask referred to his query about the plant room being a boiler room and asked the Officer to clarify this point. Mr Dray believed that the room referred to was a boiler room. Ms Toms agreed that from looking at the plans there was no reason to believe that the room would have any other use than as a plant room, which accommodated a boiler. There were other areas for housing plants, lawn mowers and equipment, which was away from the house.

Councillor Pask referred to the red line shown on the first page of the plans and queried if the front garden was the garden to the other side of the house. He asked if Officers were satisfied with the size of the garden to the back if the proposal was to be approved, as it would be significantly dominated by the extension. Ms Toms confirmed that part of the front garden was on the red line and there were also parking spaces in this area. Regarding the garden at the back, it was felt that there would still be a significant amount of space for the normal garden paraphernalia and space for playing if the extension was approved.

Mr Dray referred back to Councillor Pask’s query about the plant room and stated that the plans did not need to be labelled regarding what each room would be used for as this was internal rather than development. There had been no concerns raised through the floor plans with regards to annexes or something similar and Mr Dray advised that this was not something that Members needed to be concerned about in terms of the decision.

Councillor Law stated that he had been concerned when he had looked at the plans and seen that the proposal was for a flat roof, when the utility and plant rooms had pitched roofs. He queried how usual this was. Mr Dray expected that this could be to do with cost and it was not entirely uncommon. Members had to consider the proposal before them.

Councillor Geoff Mayes referred to the boundary between the new proposed property and the swimming pool within the adjacent property and asked Officers to clarify the distance as it seemed very close. Secondly he queried what details would be followed regarding the drainage for the roof of the swimming pool building and asked Officers to clarify this point. Ms Toms confirmed that the distance from the new extension to the neighbour’s pool room outbuilding was approximately 0.4 metres. On the rear extension there would be guttering between properties and as it was a flat roof there would be little run off. Councillor Mayes did not agree with this point and stated that a flat roof would run off to a gutter. Ms Toms confirmed that there did appear to be guttering on the plans. Councillor Mayes noted that there was a down pipe between the two buildings. Councillor Law stated that there was also a down pipe from the plant room roof. Councillor Mayes expressed concern about the two adjacent walls and that there would only be a distance of 0.4 metres.

Mr Dray referred to concerns raised about drainage and rainwater and stated that this was an area for building regulations.

Councillor Jo Stewart noted that there were a number of objections raised regarding shared sewerage arrangements and access. Councillor Stewart was of the understanding that this was not a material planning consideration and queried if this was correct. Mr Dray confirmed that in certain contexts drainage and sewerage could be planning considerations; however, regarding the issues raised in the representations, there was nothing that would have a bearing in planning terms on this particular application.

Councillor Stewart agreed with Councillor Law that the design seemed unusual however, this was presumably also not a planning consideration or a reason to refuse the application. Councillor Law was in agreement with this however, it had to be considered to what extent the design was subordinate or not in keeping with the main dwelling. Therefore the design could impact on these two issues.

Mr Dray stated that the application had to be considered in line with policies and design was a key issue in planning. Key policies in the Core Strategy included CS14 regarding proposals needing to have a high quality and sustainable design and CS19, which stated that a proposal had to be appropriate to its location. Government guidance was cautious that personal tastes were not applied when considering an application as a design was subjective, but that design was an important consideration.

Councillor Alan Macro queried how visible the extension would be from the surrounding properties. Ms Toms stated that she had viewed the plans and photographs and had spoken to an objector from a property opposite to the north of the site who had stated that they would not be able to see the proposed extension from their house. There would be limited views from the properties to the west of the site and the neighbouring property would be able to view it from their top bedroom window. Generally there would be limited views of the proposal if it was approved. Councillor Law concurred with this and stated that some of the houses in Bethesda Street might look down slightly on the roof of the proposed extension.

Debate:

Councillor Law stated that he had listened to his colleagues on the Committee and had come to the view that he was uncomfortable with the proposal however, this was likely a subjective view. He disliked the design however, this was not a planning reason on which to refuse the application.

Councillor Pask stated that having tried to view the property earlier in the day he could confirm that views of the proposal would be very limited. He understood Councillor Law’s views as the Ward Member and he was also not over enamoured with the proposal or the submission by the agent, who, in his view, had used an unusual term when stating that the garden curtilage was consistent with the urban grain of properties. Councillor Pask stated that the application site was located within a very rural area bounded by country lanes without footpaths and he struggled to see how the word ‘urban’ could be used. Councillor Pask concluded that he shared the concerns raised by Councillor Law and the views expressed by objectors however, many of the points did not relate to planning. On balance he therefore stated that he would struggle to find a good planning reason on which to refuse the application.

Councillor Tony Linden concurred with Councillor Pask with regards to planning grounds. He also noted that the neighbouring property had an extension. He would therefore be supporting Officer recommendation and formally proposed this. Councillor Linden’s proposal was seconded by Councillor Woodhams.

Councillor Stewart did not feel that the design of the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding area. From looking at photos and drawings it could be seen that the proposal was of a very modern design including a flat roof. No other buildings, including the extension at the neighbouring property, had a flat roof, as it was pitched and a more traditional appearance. The proposed extension had a contemporary design and therefore was not in-keeping and on this basis Councillor Stewart was minded to support refusal of the application.

Councillor Mayes referred to the drainage issues raised and that it was a combined drainage system, which meant that the sewage from another dwelling passed under or near to the application site. This was of great concern in Councillor Mayes’ view with regard to maintenance and repair. Councillor Law stated that this would be a matter for building control. Councillor Mayes felt that this needed to be taken into account.

Councillor Law invited Members to vote on the proposal by Council Linden, seconded by Councillor Woodhams. 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:

Informatives