Agenda item

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the he knew the applicant and objector as they were residents of Bucklebury where he lived. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01358/HOUSE in respect of demolishing an existing rear extension, construct new single storey rear extension and 2 storey side/rear extension, construct new garage block with office/games room above and a single storey link to main house.

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 Edward Mather on behalf of Mr Bill Bucknell, Objectors and Mr Simon Hudson, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representations:

Mr Mather in behalf of Mr Bucknell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Mather was an architect at Colony Architects and was a friend of Mr Bucknell who lived at Oakley next door the proposal. Mr Bucknell was away and therefore had asked by Mather to speak on his behalf.

·         Mr Bucknell had written a letter on the 15^th July and Mr Mather stated that he would reiterate the main points set out in the letter.

·         Overall Mr Bucknell was supportive of the principle of extending the house and offering an ancillary garage or incidental accommodation.

·         For a number of reasons it was felt that the scale of the proposal would cause overdevelopment on the site and would negatively impact upon the setting and Mr Bucknell’s property.

·         It was felt that the proposed rear of the extension would be an improvement and was supported as the modern extension would be removed and this would improve the appearance of the house.

·         The issue was regarding the ancillary accommodation to the side and front of the property. The site was within the countryside and within the North Wessex Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB) and although house extensions were permitted Mr Mather quoted they needed to have ‘no adverse impact on the setting, the space occupied within the plot boundaries, on the local rural character, historic interest or the building and its setting within the wider landscape’.

·         The site was positioned at the end of the Avenue, which was a distinctive local landscape feature central to the unique character of Chapel Row.

·         The site was to the north of the Avenue and faced the green. It held a prominent position and was clearly observable from the public space. Any proposal should be carefully designed to not negatively impact the setting and landscape.

·         It should be noted that back in 2005 a similar application in height and scale was refused. It was for a garage to the west of the property and was refused because of its harmful impact on the AONB, character and setting.

·         The current proposal protruded about three metres to the front of the property and was of two storey in scale. It would be the proudest structure along the Avenue and Chapel Row. Two storeys would reduce the openness of the setting and on this bases it was felt it would have a negative impact on the setting and wider landscape.

·         Mr Mather stated that there was not complete opposition to the proposal but it was hoped it could be reduced in height to reduce the negative impact.

·         There were a number of roof lights proposed on the property along the northern boundary, which faced onto Oakley. There was concern that these would cause a degree of overlooking. Secondly being in the AONB there was support for the dark skies policy and therefore the additional light pollution might be a problem. It was requested that the roof lights be removed from the proposal.

·         In summary many aspects of the proposal were welcomed however, it was requested that the height and prominence of the building be reviewed and the roof lights omitted. If the proposal was approved then it was suggested that a restrictive condition be applied regarding ancillary use.

Member Questions to the Objector:

There were no questions raised for the objector.

Agent’s Representations:

Mr Hudson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He would keep his comments brief as the felt the Committee report produced by the Planning department was very thorough in the detail and interpretation of policies.

·         Mr Hudson referred to a couple of the points raised by Mr Mather, firstly regarding the prominence of the proposal. He stated that there were other buildings within the centre of Chapel Row that were more prominent to the side of the road. Secondly regarding the roof lights, these were above eye line. Care and consideration had been given to ensuring neighbours retained their privacy.

·         In summary Mr Hudson stated that he was not a professional and did not have much further detail to add however, reiterated that the Committee report was thorough. He hoped the Committee voted in favour of the application and supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Geoff Mayes noted that there were three roof lights on the garage block and they were not equally spaced. He asked if there was a reason for this. Mr Hudson stated that he would need to check the point with his architect but his understanding was that the roof lighting had been positioned to provide light to the rooms and the stairwell in the appropriate positions. If this was something of concern then Mr Hudson stated that he would be happy to raise it with his architect. Councillor Mayes noted that it was a minor detail but it had struck him when viewing the plans.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Graham Pask in addressing the Committee raised the following points. He began by reading a representation on behalf of Bucklebury Parish Council:

·         Councillor Brims attended the site meeting but unfortunately could not make the Committee meeting and had sent his apologies.

·         The only part of the application that Bucklebury Parish Council objected to was the double garage with office, toilet and games room above, sited to the east of the property with a single storey link. The extension would have a considerable impact on the street scene from the road through Chapel Row, the green and driving northwards up Hatch Lane towards the staggered cross roads.

·         Bucklebury Parish Council did not feel that this part of the application met the criteria of sub sections one, two or four under Policy C6.

·         Bucklebury Parish Council did not think that the two storey garage extension looked subservient to the original dwelling. The apex of the roof line was above the gutter level of the existing house and almost doubled the bulk or the north and south elevations. The Parish Council felt that the design was not in character with that of the original dwelling, which had hipped rooves, whereas he proposed extension was squared.

·         Whilst the plot was large the extension would increase the footprint of the dwelling considerably and would have an impact on the rural character and on the street scene. 

·         Bucklebury Parish Council felt that the garage and rooms above would have a considerable impact on the residents of Oakley, the neighbouring property. Whilst there was no right to a view the impact of the bulk of the proposed development would be considerable on Oakley.  The windows on the rear of the proposed extension would look directly into the property and there would potentially be light spilled from the windows.

·         Bucklebury Parish Council believed that a single storey double garage with a link and low angle roof in the setting would be more appropriate. This would make the view from the road, the green and neighbouring property not to dissimilar from what it was currently.

·         Councillor Graham Pask stated that he did not always comply with the Parish Council’s requests for a call in however, he wanted the Committee to assess the impact of the proposal. The Avenue was special to Bucklebury and the avenue of trees signified the visit from Elizabeth I. Councillor Pask wanted Members to assess how the proposal sat within the special landscape in the location of Bucklebury.

·         Councillor Pask declared that he was neither for nor against the proposal and he looked forward to hearing the Committee’s judgment and comments.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

Councillor Bridgman stated that the Committee had heard differing views on separation distances between what was proposed and the road as well as other buildings within the vicinity and the road. He queried what Councillor Pask’s view was on this. Councillor Pask stated that the Avenue itself was an eclectic mix of different styles of property, mostly well set back from the road. Two doors up from the property Thatchers towards the east, was a newly built house that was originally bungalow but was still set back from the road. Councillor Pask believed that the houses referenced by Mr Hudson were those opposite the site, which did protrude closer to the road. To the west of Thatchers and the staggered cross roads there were also properties closer to the road.

Questions to Officers:

Councillor Bridgman referred to separation distances between the rear of the construction and Oakley and he believed this to be 29 metres. It was confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon queried assessing the subservience of the proposal to the existing building. The highest figure was a 74 percent increase in floor space. Councillor Mackinnon queried if anything up to 100 percent was considered subservient. Mr Dray answered that the policy stated that an extension had to be subservient but that there were no firm rules on this. Policies in the previous Local Plan and previous guidance had stipulated that between 50 and 100 percent was acceptable. This had since been removed and therefore a judgement call was required. Mr Dray read out supporting text for Policy C6 regarding subservience. There were certain elements that could be considered including the design and the percentage increases. The policy as a whole looked at the relationship between the house and the plot. Mr Dray stated that dimensions also had a bearing compared to what was existing. All were relevant points that needed to be taken into account when making the judgement.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the picture that had been shown as part of the Planning Officer’s presentation of the front elevation of the proposal. He had noticed from the picture that even when looking at the percentage increase in floor area it did not tell the whole story and the visual impact from the street scene needed to be taken in to account. Councillor Mackinnon asked if the impact from the street scene was also a judgement call. Mr Dray stated that where a development was visible from had a key impact on considerations.

Councillor Bridgman asked Mr Dray’s view on the point raised by Councillor Mayes about the roof lights. Councillor Bridgman believed that there were two rooms and a stairwell, which were of different dimensions and that the roof lights had been placed in the centre of each. This was what had caused the different distances between the lights. Secondly Councillor Bridgman stated that he noted at the site visit, the front of the garden facing the road was well screened. It had been discussed earlier in the Committee that planning permission stayed with the property. The amount of screening lessened the bulk of a proposal and therefore Councillor Bridgman asked to what extent it was possible to seek to retain screening.

In response to Councillor Bridgman’s first question Mr Dray responded that he agreed with Councillor Bridgman’s view as to why there was a discordant appearance between roof lights. Regarding screening and landscaping Mr Dray stated that landscaping was an important consideration and was something that should be secured as part of development. Reasonableness and enforceability needed to be kept in mind. Landscaping conditions were typically applied whereby planting should be maintained for the first five years as this allowed screening to become established. Mr Dray stated that they could not enforce long term protection through conditions.

Councillor Jo Stewart referred to the front street scene and asked to see the photo from the Planning Officer’s presentation which demonstrated the view currently.  It was noted that the roof top of Oakley could be seen. Councillor Stewart felt that it was interesting to see the photos and envision the impact a two storey extension would have in that position.

Councillor Woodhams had noted when visiting the site that to the west of the site there was a telephone box and two properties behind a bus layby very close to the road. There was also a public house across the road, which was very close to the road. He noticed in the planning balance conclusion that the Officers were in favour and supported the development. Councillor Woodhams proposed Officer recommendation be supported however, Councillor Pask reminded the Committee that they had not yet entered debate.

Councillor Somner asked Mr Dray to show the photograph from the neighbouring property. His first observation that he could see windows and he referenced comments made earlier regarding lighting. Councillor Somner asked for clarity regarding the hedgerow and which property it belonged to as this would determine who would have control of the height and its ability to screen. Mr Dray stated that he did not have this information to hand.

Debate:

Councillor Mackinnon stated that looking at the impact on the street scene and wider locality he could not see how it could be considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact. When looking at the proposal from the front it would substantially increase the size of existing dwelling. The impact on the visual setting in Councillor Mackinnon’s view was significant. He was therefore minded to not support Officer recommendation.

Councillor Somner disagreed with Councillor Mackinnon’s view. He agreed that the proposal was large however, the extension to the rear of the development was generally accepted. The development to the front was big however, there was a large variety of properties in the vicinity, which also varied in their proximity to the road. He understood what the applicant was trying to achieve with the application. It was an unusual plot shape being ‘wedge’ shaped, which created challenges. Councillor Somner stated that he was leaning towards supporting the Officer’s recommendation to approve the proposal.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the separation distance from Oakley. He sympathised that it was never nice for a neighbour to have something built within the eye line however, he had formed the view that the separation distance was acceptable to minimise the impact on Oakley if Members were minded to agree with Officers recommendation and approve planning permission. If approved he would urge the applicant to retain and enhance the screening to the front of the property bordering the road, as he did feel there would be a visual impact. Councillor Bridgman did not however, feel it was enough of an impact to refuse the application.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the question raised earlier in the Committee regarding the garage doors and stated that he would not want to see the garage doors removed and the garage converted to accommodation. He sought guidance from Mr Dray on this. Mr Dray stated that the plans showed the ground floor would be used as a garage,  cycle store and workshop. There was a door on the garage and therefore the condition applied to the previous application considered at the Committee would not apply. Mr Dray noted that the uses shown on the plans were ancillary. A condition could be applied that ensured the garage could only be used for ancillary or incidental use.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he wanted to see the garage doors retained. Mr Dray stated that if Members considered this necessary to retain the visual appearance then it would be legally possible to apply condition stipulating the door remain.

Mr Dray referred to comments regarding screening and stated that this could be covered off by landscaping conditions.

Councillor Woodhams stated that his view of the application accorded with the Officer recommendation. He therefore proposed that Members approve planning permission with amendments to the conditions. This was seconded by Councillors Bridgman.

Councillor Pask invited the Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woodhams, seconded by Councillor Bridgman. 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

Informatives