Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01481/HOUSE in respect of Oakingham House, Bere Court Road, Pangbourne. Approval was sought for the conversion of the existing indoor swimming pool to create a kitchen, dining and family room with ancillary storage areas, it was also proposed, in a first floor extension above, to form two ensuite bedrooms with associated dressing areas and a covered balcony, and a single storey extension to the current outbuilding courtyard was proposed in order to create a gym.

Mr Bob Dray, Team Leader in Development Control, 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 proposed extensions were acceptable and would not harm the character and appearance of the application site, its setting within the North Wessex Downs AONB, or the rural character of the locality. No material harm was anticipated to neighbouring amenity. It was therefore considered that the development was acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable; it was recommended that it be delegated to the Service Director (Development & Regulation) to grant planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative and Mr Shaun Tanner, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application fell within the AONB, outside the settlement boundary of Pangbourne. The boundary marked on the location plan included a red line that appeared to mean that the land was reserved for equestrian use.

·         The application was for a large and bulky building which would be prominent in the landscape. The previous application was approved having made note of the fact that much of the application was single storey which lessened the visual impact.

·         The drawings were incomplete. There was no existing site plan and it was not clear whether what was being applied for was four separate buildings linked by a single roof, or the extension of the garage to include a gym.

·         It would seem that two flats had been built in what were originally stables on the previous plans without permission.

·         There was concern that access to the area of the extension for the gym was restricted. There could be a temptation to utilise the public footpath for access to the area of the courtyard for the construction of the gym. There was no “Design and Access” Statement attached to the application that would clarify the position. If the Council were minded to grant permission, it would need to ask for a condition that required the Public Footpath PANG/13/3 be kept clear of contractors vehicles at all times and for reinstatement to be required if appropriate.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

It was to be noted that in terms of the footpath there was a proposed condition in the report (informative two) dealing with that aspect. Also, as it was noted that there was a front gate, it was queried why was there concern that the footpath would be blocked. Mr Higgs stated that there had been some concern raised at a Parish Council meeting because it was not clear that access could be gained between the buildings within the site.

In terms of the boundary marked with a red line which was meant to be reserved for equestrian use, it was queried whether that line was simply the extent of land ownership and it was felt that the distinction between the formal garden area and the field was clear. Mr Higgs commented that there were problems within the Parish over residential curtilage and that agricultural land should not be taken into the boundaries of the garden.

Applicant/Agent Representation:

Mr Shaun Tanner in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         In terms of the equestrian boundary, there had been no use of the land for equestrian purposes in over 27 years; therefore, he did not see the relevance to those concerns.

·         The application was for the extension and alteration of the property following pre-application engagement with Council Planning Officers and suggested amendments were incorporated into the proposal.

·         The dimensions of the proposed elements were concise and articulate, as set out in paragraph 1-3 of the committee report and the dwelling was located outside the settlement boundary of Pangbourne.

·         Local plan policy C6 provided presumption in favour of extensions of existing dwellings subject to the development considered to be subservient to the original dwelling provided no adverse impact on setting and the use of material was appropriate. There was also no significant harm to the neighbourhood or the community from the development. Mr Tanner addressed the work he had done with the planners to ensure that the building would not encroach on the AONB.

·         Materials were proposed to match existing where possible, materials would be salvaged where possible, there were no neighbours in close enough proximity to be affected by the proposal in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or dominance and the Officer’s recommendations were taken into account.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent:

Concern was raised over the introduction of dormer windows on the second floor and that it would introduce an aspect of overlooking. Mr Tanner explained that the dormers were inherent in that type of Italian design; they added a 3D dimension to the building and that they were subservient to the main roof.

Member Questions to the Officer:

A question was asked concerning the lack of information in the report about how much of the building size would increase, what the cumulative effect would be as well as the increases in the floor area and whether these increases in floor space were cumulative over the years or just on the latest plans? Mr Bob Dray explained that dimensions were given which was a percentage of the floor area and this was contained in paragraph 6.5 of the report. There was an increase in floor area on all 3 levels. In terms of whether the floor space was an accumulation, Mr Dray said the Planners believed it to be existing but were assessing it as subservient rather than disproportionate.

Another question was asked about the domestic curtilage and if that was what the red line on the plans indicated? Mr Bob Dray explained that the red line denoted the application site which was not necessarily the same as residential curtilage. An informative was included to make clear that there was not agreement that the whole red line was residential curtilage; therefore residential curtilage likely went around the formal gardens but not around the remainder of the land as there was nothing to suggest that was the case. There was confidence that the proposed extensions were within the residential curtilage.

A question was raised about whether it was useful to point out that the access of construction vehicles would be through the main entrance? Mr Bob Dray explained that as a matter of principle, conditions should only be applied that were necessary and often construction method statements covered parking and construction vehicles. As this property had reasonable access this was not a particular concern; however, if Members were concerned then it would be a reasonable thing to consider adding as a condition. The public footpath was an informative and not a condition because it was covered by separate legislation.

Debate:

Councillor Keith Woodhams said he felt it was a stunning design and brought the whole building to life. He felt there were no policy conflicts and accorded with the Officer recommendations. He therefore proposed the Officer’s recommendations.

Councillor Tony Linden said he thought the building was in proportion to the development and he seconded the motion.

Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that he raised the dormer issue because it would make a distinct change to the roofline; the rest of the extension was however subservient to the main building but his concern was that the introduction to the structure to the flat roof line made a difference. However, he felt that the building in its entirety was acceptable.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woodhams, seconded by Councillor Linden, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director (Development and Regulation) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed below:

Conditions

Informatives