To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 21/01038/HOUSE, 1 Croft Road, Newbury, Newbury Wash Common

Proposal:

Two storey extension to the side and single storey extension to the rear.

Location:

1 Croft Road, Newbury.

Applicant:

Martin Redford

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions.

 

Minutes:

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a ward members for this application. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Phil Barnett declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee where this matter had been discussed. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a ward members for this application, and he was also a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee where this matter had been discussed. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors Tony Vickers and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 21/01038/HOUSE in respect of 1 Croft Road, Newbury. Approval was sought for a two storey extension to the side and single storey extension to the rear.

2.     The Chairman stated that he had been unable to attend the site visits, and a Principal Planning Officer had not been present either. He suggested that the application needed to be viewed from the neighbouring properties; and proposed deferring debate until there was a chance for Members to do so. He indicated that he had told one of the neighbours that this would be allowed, as he had thought that Covid restrictions had lapsed when they had not. The Chairman felt it would be unfair to the neighbours to move to a debate when less than half of Members had visited the site.

3.     Mrs Sharon Armour stated that the Committee must follow the procedure set out in the Constitution. She noted that the Applicant’s Agent was present at the meeting and was entitled to speak to the item.

4.     The Committee discussed whether it was normal procedure for it to be necessary for the property to be viewed from neighbouring gardens. The Chairman confirmed that this had indeed been the case in previous applications, subject to permission being obtained from the neighbours. Councillor Howard Woollaston indicated that he had viewed the property from a neighbouring property and considered it important that the other members of the Committee do the same.

5.     Councillor Hilary Cole felt the proceedings may be one-sided in the absence of objectors. The Chairman indicated that there were two objectors, one of whom could not make the meeting, but the other was joining via Zoom.

6.     Mrs Armour indicated that the Committee should not debate a motion to defer the application without having heard all relevant information. Therefore, it was agreed to proceed with the item as planned.

7.     Mr Masie Masiiwa, Senior Planning Officer, 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 Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

8.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Coldman, objector, and Ms Sophie Martin, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

9.     Mr Coldman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The objection to the application was based upon his reading of the Council's own SPG document. The development was not proposed in order to meet any future needs of the family at 1 Croft Road.

·         Among the key principles of the SPG were the effects on neighbours. He believed this application would have a substantial effect, in terms of overshadowing which the SPG said should be avoided.

·         The SPG quoted a 60° rule with regard to ground floor extensions and a 45° rule with regard to first floor extensions.

·         No documentation had been submitted which showed either the ground floor of building at the rear nor the mono-pitch roof extension met this requirement.

·         With regard to privacy, the SPG stated that the rule of thumb was 21m between facing windows and that reasonable privacy should be secured by careful design were that not possible. The property boundary was 13m from the ground floors of both Mr Coldman’s property (39 Wendan Road) and 37 Wendan Road.

·         The SPG stated that any variance in the ground levels to neighbouring properties should be considered. The difference in ground level, as mentioned in the report, was estimated at about 1.25 metres from 39 Wendan Road to that of 1 Croft Road.

·         Paragraph 6.5 of the report stated that the sense of spaciousness currently enjoyed (at 37 Wendan Road) would not be widely affected as a result of this extension. 37 Wendan Road currently had a boundary of a 2 metre high wooden panel fence which would be replaced by 5 metres of brick wall with an overhanging roof of undetermined dimensions.

·         Paragraph 6.7 of the report mentioned the large expanse of glazing and that a variety of styles was common in the area, however, most of this glazing was facing east and west towards and could be considered a significant intrusion, particularly in relation to light pollution if not overlooking, and particularly on the first floor mono pitch roof where the glazing would let any lighting, whether LED or not, show into the first floor windows of 3 Croft Road.

·         Paragraph 6.8 of the report mentioned only a small section of the mono-pitched roof reaching the same height as the first floor window of 1 Croft Road. It was difficult to ascertain exactly how high this was from the plans because it was difficult to work out from the dimensions which were not given. The Planning Officer had said this would extend a good distance to the rear, but had not said how far - it was assumed to be between 6 and 7 metres. The Planning Officer said this would not dominate the rear elevation to an unacceptable extent. It was suggested the Committee view the 3D model to determine whether 36sqm of tile roofing reaching into the boundary was not an overbearing aspect of the design.

·         Paragraph 6.9 of the report stated that a fence height of 2.5 metres was only 0.5 taller than what could be constructed under permitted development, but queried why a 2.5 metre fence was required in a domestic setting.

·         In paragraph 6.11, the Planning Officer referred to loss of light to 3 Croft Road supporting this with the daylight and sunlight report which, with reference to 39 Wendan Road, was incorrect because it did not include their ground floor extension. Neither did it include the overhang of the mono-pitch roof. Mr Coldman queried why this report was considered definitive over SPG recommendations.

·         Paragraphs 6.12 and 6.6 referred to the glazed openings to the east and west with only a small section which was above the fence. Mr Coldman queried why any part had to be above the fence and could it not be stipulated that the entire glazed openings had to be below the level of the fence.

·         Mr Coldman concluded that it had been very difficult to ascertain the exact dimensions of the extension from the plans and he did not feel he had received fair access to the information flow from the Planning Officers.

Member Questions to the Objector

10.  The Chairman asked Mr Coldman if he would appreciate Members attending the site to assess the issues he had raised, in particular the size and position of the extension. Mr Coldman replied that he felt it would be helpful for Members to see the proposed scheme from his property’s lower level and from the adjacent property at 3 Croft Road.

Applicant/Agent Representation

11.  Ms Martin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The submitted drawings had been checked by the Planning Officers and were found to be scaled correctly and were accurate so measurements could be scaled directly.

·         The current application had been drastically altered from the previous application as a result of the Applicant’s careful consideration to the neighbour’s concerns.

·         The balcony element, fourth bedroom and third-story element had all been removed in their entirety and the ground floor development had been remodelled to the rear in accordance with permitted development guidelines and massing moved away from the boundaries of 3 Croft Road and 37 Wendan Road.

·         Croft Road was an established residential area with presumption in favour of residential development and the proposed side extension mirrored a similar extension at 3 Croft Road.

·         As 1 and 3 Croft Road were a semi-detached pair, it could be argued that the existing two-storey side extension to number 3 unbalanced the appearance of the properties from the principle elevation and the proposed side extension sought to rectify this imbalance.

·         The rear façade was contemporary with a modern palette of materials and off-white render.

·         The new flat roof would be covered with sedums blending seamlessly into the garden landscape and the visual impact to the ground floor extension would be minimised by the natural slope of the long garden.

·         As the SPG stated, with the complementary styles matching existing, it could be argued carefully selected high quality and sympathetic materials to the rear fulfilled the guidance to reflect and add to the appearance of the building.

·         The overhanging roof and the guttering detail proposed to the side extension mirrored an existing development already carried out at 3 Croft Road and the Planning Officer had no concern with the overhang of the guttering in this respect.

·         As per the SPG, by carefully matching the principal façade, size, style and proportion of windows, colours, tones and textures of existing materials, details and also replicating the bonding of new brickwork to the principal elevation and matching the mortar type ensured that the new brickwork would blend in with the old and show that the utmost was being done to protect the character of the property and the local area from the principal elevation.

·         The proposal did not adversely impact on the living conditions of the neighbours as outlined in the independent report commissioned and undertaken by Mr Charles McMahon with right of light consultants who concluded that the numerical results of the study demonstrated that the proposed development would have a low impact on the light receivable by its neighbouring properties (3 Croft Road and 37 and 39 Wendan Road) and in their opinion, the proposed development sufficiently safeguarded the daylight and sunlight amenity of the neighbouring properties.

·         The overlooking was immaterial in this case as the windows were over 3 metres off the ground.

·         The idea of light pollution was normally brought about in cases where there might be floodlighting, for example a football pitch, which was not applicable in this case.

·         The Highways Department report of 20/05/21 stated that they had no comment with regard to the application at 1 Croft Road. Even with the proposed extension to the side of the property, the front drive would remain in excess of 6x9 meters, exceeding the recommended dimensions for 3 parking spaces for a 3 bedroom house in zone 1.

·         The Applicants had done their utmost to reflect the local character and add to the appearance of the building whilst making changes to support Mrs Redford and enhance hers and consequently the whole family’s quality of life as she is a disabled person.

·         The Applicants had carefully considered their neighbours and had made far-reaching and significant alterations to previous applications and had demonstrated understanding and consideration of local concerns. They had also acted to safeguard the character of the principal elevation of their property and to enhance it sympathetically to the rear.

·         The Applicants had gone above and beyond to commission a daylight and sunlight report to ensure that the proposals did not adversely affect the impact of the living conditions of the neighbours at considerable financial cost to themselves.

·         The Applicants had also ensured compliance in terms of parking guidelines to the satisfaction of the Highways department.

·         The Planning Officer was happy to recommend approval.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

12.  Councillor Abbs asked how the extension at 3 Croft Road was similar to the proposed extension at 1 Croft Road. Ms Martin indicated that they were similar in that they were both two-storey side elevations. They were similar in principle. The side elevations on both properties were similar and there was also an existing rear development to 3 Croft Road. She suggested that the rear elevations were similar in terms of floor space, but not in character.

13.  Councillor Abbs noted that a great deal of emphasis had been placed on the light report, but the previous speaker had suggested that the report contained incorrect assumptions so asked it would be risky for Members to assume the report was correct if it did contain errors. Ms Martin confirmed the report had been produced by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, independent right of light assessment, and it could be relied upon as an accurate assessment.

14.  The Chairman noted from the block plan it appeared that the proposed extension was significantly further out from the building line into the garden than the extension at 3 Croft Road and queried the assertion that both developments were of similar size. Ms Martin stated that they were similar in size insofar as a sizeable rear extension had already been completed at 3 Croft Road, but she was not asserting they were similar numerically, as she had not been to 3 Croft Road to undertake a survey or take measurements of the extension. There was already a garage in place at 1 Croft Road and the extent of the proposal came out to the end of that garage space.

15.  The Chairman observed if that was the case then the block plan was showing a distinctly larger extension than that at 3 Croft Road. Ms Martin clarified that she had not said the extensions were of identical size, but that they were of similar size.

16.  Councillor Doherty referred to the three large windows on the proposed west elevation and asked whether they would be above the fence line. Ms Martin did not believe the windows would be above the fence line.

Ward Member Representation

17.  Councillor Abbs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The effect on residents surrounding the proposed extension had not been correctly presented and a visit specifically to the direct neighbour was essential to fully understand what would result if the application was approved.

·         Those that had undertaken a site visit at the request of the neighbour would understand their concerns.

·         As Acting Chairman of the day, he had asked the Officer whether anybody had been invited in to see the neighbour’s perspective and was told that no arrangements had been made to do so. However, within 30 minutes of the visit, the neighbour had contacted Ward Members to find out what had happened.

·         Councillor Abbs asked Members to refer to the proposed section BB / East elevation and the existing and proposed block plan on the West Berkshire planning portal, which clearly showed an approximate doubling in the length of the whole house, with over 80% of the additional length taken to a height close to the guttering of the existing property. Far from being a single-storey extension, it was not far off being a two-storey extension.

·         Almost all of the drawings submitted for the application were hand drawn and contained few, if any measurements, but rather a scale to work from. Although Officers were confident in their calculations, the Committee had considered previous applications where measurements had made a significant difference to thinking, and Members were therefore urged to use caution when assuming these numbers or dimensions were correct, particularly given the objector’s comments expressing doubt about the light report.

·         The plans submitted did not correctly identify the extent of the site or boundary positions, which were major issues.

·         The over-sailing eaves extended the width and projection of the extension adding to the shading and loss of daylight to the attached neighbour. The daylight and sunlight report appeared to be based on the line of the walls rather than the roof casting serious doubt on the report.

·         It had been made clear from several residents that they were not opposed to an extension in principle, it was merely the specific size and layout of the proposed extension that had caused concern. Councillor Abbs indicated that he was sympathetic to this concern and urged the Applicant to modify the proposal to further alleviate the concerns raised.

·         Given the lack of clarity on this issue, it appeared unsafe for Members to approve this application at this stage.

·         Councillor Abbs urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds of loss of amenity, uncertainty around measurements and non-compliance with the SPG.

18.  The Chairman, speaking as ward member made the following points:

·         The application was finely balanced and that there had not been good communication between the Applicant and their neighbours.

·         There was concern that at least one of the neighbours had engaged with professional planning advice, but unfortunately on the date of the meeting, the Planning Consultant was on holiday and the Applicant was not available to attend the meeting.

·         In the interest of fairness, so that both sides could have the right to attend and have their case heard and for Members to be able to see the proposal from the site and from the property of the immediate neighbour, he felt that the matter should be deferred.

Member Questions to the Ward Members

19.  There were no questions for the ward members

Member Questions to Officers

20.  Members did not have any questions for officers.

Debate

21.  Councillor Abbs asked if Members could move to defer the item at this point.

22.  Mrs Armour stated it was up to the Committee to decide to defer if they did not have sufficient information to make a decision.

23.  Councillor Woollaston opened the debate and proposed that the application be deferred as there were questions over the height of the building, some of the dimensions required clarification and more information was required from a physical site visit. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

24.  Mr Till stated that in relation to the matter of procedure of Committee site visits, members of the public had not been invited to participate due to Covid-19 regulations, so there was nothing untoward in this. He also made the more general point that there was no procedural requirement for the Committee to make site visits to a neighbouring property. Officers accepted that it may be of benefit, but in the majority of cases Members were expected to make a decision based on what was visible within the site and public views. He conceded that there may be cases where an exception could be made and this case may be one of them, but as a general principle a visit to a neighbouring property did not form part of Committee procedure. The Chairman agreed with Mr Till.

25.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Abbs to defer consideration of the proposal. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred.

Continuation of meeting

26.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution point 7.13.5, the Committee supported Councillor Hilary Cole’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(4).

Supporting documents: