Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01390/HOUSE in respect of Section 73 variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approved 20/00852/HOUSE - Demolition of three unsafe timber outbuildings, construction of a replacement timber car port/garage, two single storey extensions to the rear of the building, single storey extension to the side of the building and alterations including modifications and replacement of windows.

Mr Bob Dray (Team Leader – Development Control) introduced the item and highlighted the key points within the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andrew House, Parish Council representative and Mr Nigel Bearman (agent) addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr House in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• There had been a number interventions by the West Berkshire Council Enforcement Team due to discrepancies to the original planning permission.
• Bradfield Parish Council had been advised by parishioners that the building did not match the approved plans.
• The application sought to regularise only three of the issues raised, including access to the building, the introduction of a hipped roof and the introduction of roof lights.    
• The Parish Council felt that having the access to the ancillary use element of the proposal in the north elevation, nearer to the main dwelling was a more sensible position.
• The hipped roof was welcomed as it reduced the bulky appearance of the proposal. It was however felt that it made the proposal seem more ‘house’ like rather than the outbuilding it reported to be.
• The removal of the two roof lights raised questions about what the future use might be.
• The Parish Council was concerned regarding the original application in terms of the proposed size and intended use. Being of an oak frame structure, even though timber cladding was proposed, the Parish Council had felt that the proposal was in keeping as an outbuilding within the North Wessex Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB) and not as a base for a new house in the countryside, which was very much contrary to West Berkshire Council policy.
• Mr House stated that interestingly the drawing submitted for the section 73 application stated ‘Oak Frame Structure’. There was now however, reference to a single dividing support between the two car port bays.
• The ground floor plan still clearly showed the positioning of the wooden structure throughout and not the fully insulated cavity wall, concrete block structure that had been built. Mr House queried how the case officer could recommend approval when the plans did not reflect what had been built.
• The Parish Council noted the suggested conditions. There was confusion regarding condition one as ‘drawing 2006 – P14A’ appeared twice but with different title descriptions.
• The Parish Council requested that condition four be amended and extended in line with a number of ancillary use approvals given locally in both Bradfield and the adjoining parish. The additional sentence to read ‘The car port garage building shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit nor shall it be sold, let, rented or otherwise separately occupied or disposed of, and no separate curtilage shall be created’. The addition would mirror other conditional approvals and avoid future change of use challenges. 
• In conclusion the Parish Council felt that the applicant seemed to have disregarded the approved plans and conditions applied and built something similar. The original application was to demolish three timber outbuildings and construct a replacement timber car port. The current application did not fully reflect what had been built in the Parish Council’s view.
• If the Committee was minded to approve the application, the Parish Council felt that condition four needed to be amended to avoid any confusion about the use of the proposal. 

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Bridgman noted that Mr House had stated that what had been built was a cavity wall construction and asked for clarification on this. Mr House confirmed that this was correct and what had been built was a concrete block cavity wall, which was fully insulated. 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon asked for clarification that the Parish Council’s view was that condition four should be extended to state that that the separate building should not be sold, let or separately occupied. Councillor Mackinnon noted that this was very similar to other conditions that had been granted elsewhere in Bradfield. Mr House agreed that this was correct and added that similar conditions had also been granted in the adjoining parish of Bucklebury

Agent Representations:

Mr Bearman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• He believed that the reason why the application had been brought to the Committee was because of a misunderstanding initially regarding the size of what had been approved. Bradfield Parish Council stated at the time that the height and footprint of the building had increased dramatically. Planning Officers had been on site and checked this point and confirmed that the difference was minor and considered to be within acceptable tolerances.
• The Planning Officer had also confirmed that the changes made would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the application or to the rural character of the NWDAONB and were therefore not considered significant changes.
• The Enforcement Officer had instructed that work needed to stop on the site and therefore it had not been possible to complete the building. If the building had been completed there would have been cladding all the way around it. There would have also have been oak posts in the garage with oak braces to match entrance to the main house.
• Regarding concerns raised about the construction, the structure above the cavity walls was timber. Concrete blocks had been used because Mr Bearman used to be a builder and it was cheaper for him to build in this way. The reason for the inclusion of the cavity wall was for structural purposes. He added that a 4 inch wall would have not been structurally sound. The building from the outside would look no different to if it had been a timber structure.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that he had a question that would not have an impact on his view or decision on the application. He stated that that there had been planning permission based on explicit plans for the design of the building, which had been ignored by the applicant. Councillor Bridgman asked why Mr Bearman had chosen to ignore the original approved plans and had not applied for a fresh planning permission if he had wanted to build something different before starting the construction phase. Mr Bearman stated that he had relied upon his agent when constructing the building. Regarding the material construction and when it had come to constructing the roof it had been felt that a hipped roof would have less of an impact and would reduce the size of the building rather than increase it. Regarding mirroring the building, Mr Bearman stated that he had not paid enough attention when the plans were originally submitted and noted that the proposed door for the ancillary accommodation was away from the property and would have required a 16m/20m path to be put down. The door now faced his utility room, which was just 4m away and made more sense. Mr Bearman stated that he had not realised that this would cause a problem.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he understood Mr Bearman’s reasoning however, did not understand why fresh planning permission had not been sought and queried why something had been constructed that did not have planning permission. Mr Bearman stated that he had been reliant upon his agent who worked with drawings and plans. Mr Bearman commented that he was a bricklayer by trade however, had not been for some time and had not dealt with the planning process before as he normally relied upon an agent. Mr Bearman had sought advice from his agent, who had advised that what was proposed would not cause any issues and in his naivety Mr Bearman had relied upon the advice he was given. Mr Bearman realised that he had been given incorrect information and stated that he had not set out to break any rules.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that he had a couple of questions for information purposes and the answers would not influence his decision on the item. It was noted that Mr Bearman had mentioned his naivety in relation to the planning process and Councillor Mackinnon asked if he had developed similar buildings in the past being an experienced developer. Mr Bearman stated that he was not a developer but a householder who had built extensions and properties in the past. The last building he had developed was a new build in the village and this was five or six years ago. He had not developed anything like the current application that had experienced issues with the planning process and he had never been before a Planning Committee.

Councillor Mackinnon asked what the outbuilding would be used for. Mr Bearman stated that although his house was large, due to some parts being built in the 1850s it was not suitable for storage. The first floor of the outbuilding would be used for the storage of Mr Bearman’s processions and he stated that no additional accommodation was required. Mr Bearman referred to fears about the structure being used as a house and stated that if this was done it would devalue his net worth and therefore should not be a concern to the Committee.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that the first floor would be used for storage. Mr Bearman stated that this was correct and explained that the use would be ancillary to the house for storage. There was no loft space in the main house.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Ross Mackinnon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• He had called in the application in as Ward Member following conversations with the Parish Council.
• He had not formed an opinion on the application and would let the proceedings continue.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

There were no questions raised for the Ward Member.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Woodhams asked Mr Bob Dray to comment on the suggested amendments to condition four by the Parish Council. Mr Dray commented that condition four detailed that the garage and car port should be used solely for purposes ancillary or incidental to the main house and what had been read out by the Parish Council was standard text that had been applied to conditions previously. The key aim of condition four was to ensure that the outbuilding was not separated from the house and remained ancillary accommodation or for an incidental purpose such as storage. Condition four achieved this and was the standard model text from Government. The additional elements suggested by the Parish Council were all symptoms that the outbuilding was no longer ancillary or incidental. Mr Dray stated that the additional wording provided clarity however, it was debatable whether it was necessary. He would however, have no objection to the inclusion of the additional points. 

Councillor Bridgman referred to condition six regarding restrictions on alterations to the car port. There was a two bay car port and a secure garage. Councillor Bridgman stated that he would like to see a similar restriction on the garage as he would not want to see the garage converted to residential accommodation and he asked for Officer’s comments on this. Mr Dray stated that it was important to consider what was necessary. There were conditions that had been used historically when the garage counted towards parking provision but this was not the case for the current application. Mr Dray stated that if Members felt that this would make a difference to ensuring the outbuilding remained ancillary or incidental then he did not think it would be unreasonable point to consider.

Councillor Bridgman noted in the planning history on page 20 of the planning report that the current permission was in relation to a replacement timber car port garage. He noted comments that had been made about the breeze block structure being internal however, on the update sheet on page two an ‘oak frame structure’ was stated and under ‘proposed changes’ it stated that no change was specified. Councillor Bridgman felt that a change was specified to allow for breeze block and cavity wall construction and questioned if this needed to be reflected in the paperwork. Mr Dray stated that the internal structure was not normally material to planning and therefore he did not feel that there should need to be a change in terms of the planning permission. Mr Dray acknowledged that there was some ambiguity regarding the description and suggested that an informative could be included if the application was approved.

Councillor Bridgman noted in the Committee pack that all three applications for consideration by the Committee had been called in. He suggested in the future that the reason for a ‘call in’ be included in the report.

Councillor Bridgman stated that at the last meeting of the Planning Committee a section 73 application had been considered. At the end of the debate Councillor Bridgman explained that he had made a proposal and was advised by Planning Officers it was not a valued reason on planning grounds. Councillor Bridgman explained that he had suggested that the application be refused because the proposed change in his view was not ‘minor’ however, he had been advised that valued planning reasons were required for refusal. Councillor Bridgman asked Officers to reflect on the question of whether or not it was in the purview of the Committee to refuse a 73 application based on the reason that a change was not considered minor and should therefore be the subject of a full planning application. Mr Dray stated that he was not at the last Committee meeting so could not comment on the specifics. Mr Dray stated that there were different ways that planning permission could be varied. There was a non material amendment, which was for very minor matters and then the second way was through a section 73, which was for minor material changes. Mr Dray explained that if a change fundamentally changed a development then it was no longer varying the approved plans and a new fresh planning application would be required. Mr Dray was content that the current application was a minor material amendment under section 73.

Councillor Mackinnon asked Mr Dray to comment on Mr House’s suggestion for an extension to condition four regarding the proposed use of the building. Secondly Councillor Mackinnon asked Mr Dray to comment on Mr House’s point about the section 73 being appropriate when the new submitted plans did not reflect what had already been built. Mr Dray in answering Councillor Mackinnon’s first question noted that the points Mr House had wanted adding were: not creating a separate dwelling; not creating a separate curtilage; not sold, let leased or otherwise separately occupied. These were all symptoms of a new house being created and if this was the case it was no longer ancillary or incidental to the main house. Mr Dray confirmed that he had no objection to adding these points to condition four. Regarding a section 73 being appropriate, Mr Dray felt that the changes were acceptable. The measurements for the proposed changes were annotated on the plans. Mr Dray confirmed that condition two had also now been corrected on the update sheet.

Councillor Pask highlighted that although the Committee had heard from Mr Bearman who had stated that he had no intention to create a separate dwelling, it was important to note that the planning permission did not go to Mr Bearman but to the property.

Councillor Richard Somner referred back to condition four and asked for some clarity. Councillor Somner had noted the suggested extensions to the conditions however, stated that ancillary use and incidental use was used for a construction that could not exist on its own such as a shed. Despite the distinction between the two if there was a garage with incidental use there was nothing to stop it being changed to ancillary use unless a condition was applied with a clear reason for doing so. 

Debate:

Councillor Bridgman expressed that he would not want anything stated at the Committee that would give the impression that it was alright to get planning permission and then build something different. Councillor Bridgman felt very strongly that the applicant should have applied from a fresh planning permission or under section 73 before building commenced.

Councillor Bridgman personally felt that the changes improved the proposal particularly the hipped roof. He did not feel that any of the other changes materially affected the development and changes to the dimensions were minimal compared to what was granted. Councillor Bridgman felt that the changes to the layout of the building actually helped the building look less bulky as the car port would be pushed out to the side. Councillor Bridgman took on board fully the comments raised by the Parish Council and stated that he would like both conditions four and six to be extended. Councillor Bridgman stated that he was reaching the view that he was in support of the application.

Councillor Somner concurred with the points raised by Councillor Bridgman. It was important that people realised that any changes needed to go through the appropriate process. Councillor Somner did not feel that the structure as it stood was out of keeping and was satisfied with the measurements. Councillor Somner proposed that the proposal be approved with inclusion of the suggested changes to conditions. Councillor Royce Longton seconded the proposal.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that he agreed with the comments raised by Councillors Bridgman and Somner regarding planning permission being sought. It was indicated by the nature of the questions raised at the Committee that there was concern regarding the proposed use, particularly as the building was visually appealing and looked much like a house. There was concern that the building could be turned into a residence and although Mr Bearman had stated he had no intention to do this it was important to note Mr Bearman could sell the property at any time. Councillor Mackinnon supported the extension of conditions four and six. Otherwise Councillor Mackinnon agreed that the appearance of the development had improved.

Mr Dray clarified the suggested wording of conditions four and six. Condition four would be amended to explicitly preclude the creation of a separate dwelling or the creation of a separate residential curtilage, and ensure that  the building must not be sold, let or disposed of separately.

Councillor Bridgman stated that suggested amendments to condition six related to the use of the garage and the right to convert. A condition was required to ensure that the garage could not be used for anything but storage or as a garage. Mr Dray suggested leaving condition six un-amended, but amending condition four further to stipulate that the ground floor be kept to garaging, carport or other incidental uses such as storage. He suggested that the first floor be kept as ancillary and/or incidental use. 

Councillor Pask stated that elsewhere within the parish of Bradfield a car port had been allowed with the restriction that doors should not be fitted however, doors had been fitted. The doors subsequently had to be removed following an appeal. Councillor Pask asked Mr Dray to clarify if doors should not be fitted without precise planning permission. Mr Dray stated that condition six would prevent doors being fitted on the car port and he suggested no amendments should be made to this. Condition four however, could be amended to clarify the use for each of the floors. It could be amended to read that the ground floor should be used solely for garage and car port purposes incidental to the dwelling and the first floor should be used only for ancillary of incidental uses. Councillor Somner and Councillor Longton confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed wording suggested by Mr Dray.

Councillor Pask invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Longton and 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