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

Agenda item

Application No. & Parish: 21/02012/FULMAJ - Land at West Lodge, Basildon

Meeting of Eastern Area Planning Committee, Wednesday, 26th January, 2022 6.30 pm (Item 35.(2))

Proposal:	Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of replacement dwelling.
Location:	Land at West Lodge, Basildon
Applicant:	Mrs Julie Rees
Recommendation:	Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant conditional permission.

Minutes:

(Councillor Woodhams rejoined the meeting at 7.51pm).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/02012/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of existing dwelling, erection of replacement dwelling.

Principal Planning Officer, Michael Butler, introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Matthew Miller, agent and Councillor Alan Law, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

Mr Miller in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Mr Miller was a chartered planner speaking on behalf of the applicant.

· The application constituted a resubmission following a refused application for a replacement dwelling.

· Since the refusal, work had gone in to revising the scheme and adjusting the proposal to overcome the areas of concern. Firstly the proposal had been reduced in volume and bulk. It was now a proportionate replacement to the existing built form.

· Various technical reports had been provided in reference to the previous refusal reasons.

· Mr Miller stated that whilst there had been some debate regarding whether the existing boat house should be included within the volume of the replacement bulk built form, even when including the boat house the proposal was not disproportionate in terms of bulk and massing.

· There would be a noticeable reduction in hard standing and an increase in soft landscaping.

· The proposal was of high quality bespoke design and it would complement its surroundings particularly in comparison to the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling had limited design merit as it had a corrugated metal roof, which was visible from the A329 to the south.

· The improved appearance of the proposal and the fact that it would be set back from the A329 would result in an improved relationship to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

· Mr Miller stated that Members who attended the site visit would have seen the site from view points across the river however, it was considered that the view point from the A329 was also critical as the road experienced a high volume of foot fall. The proposal would improve the attractiveness from this view. The proposal would be set back and with the existing wall would mean the proposal would have limited visibility.

· Views from across the river were observed on the site visit during the winter. In summer months when planting was in bloom there would be significant screening of the proposal from the river view point. The proposal would result in a positive character impact.

· Whilst the CPRE had objected to the proposal due to visual harm, it had been demonstrated that the proposal would not be imposing to a harmful extent.

· Mr Miller stated that Members at the site visit would have also seen that the proposal would be located on a downward slope towards the river. This changing site level had been factored into the submission through the provision of detailed landscape and tree structure management information, to be further supplemented by condition.

· Mr Miller did not consider the existing residential curtilage to cover the entirety of the plot, in his professional view the proposed curtilage constituted a reduction from the existing situation. This would offer further benefit in reducing harm to the countryside and setting.

· No objections had been raised by residents or the neighbouring parish council, including those in South Oxfordshire.

· A comment of support had been received by a neighbour for the proposal stating that it would create an overall visual improvement to the existing.

· The proposal would also create a more energy efficient and sustainable dwelling in comparison to the existing by accommodating modern methods of construction compared to the aged existing dwelling.

· Regarding highway safety the proposal was a replacement dwelling with the same number of bedrooms proposed and with adequate parking/access arrangements.

· Construction traffic along the A329 would be regulated through the necessary management plans.

· Regarding residential amenity there were significant separation distances to the neighbouring dwellings.

· Matters including flooding, ecology and archaeology had all been addressed factoring in the vicinity of the development to the river. The applicant was in agreement to the conditions proposed.

· In conclusion the application fully accorded with planning policy as a sustainable development that protected the integrity, character and beauty of the AONB and countryside location. It was requested that permission be granted.

Member Questions to the Agent

Councillor Alan Law noted from the Officer’s report under section 6.12 that the footprint was just under 60 percent of the existing dwelling. Councillor Law stated that Mr Miller had caused doubt in his mind regarding what the footprint of the existing dwelling was and queried if it was the house plus the boat house or the house alone. Mr Miller stated that the figure of 60 percent was in relation to the existing dwelling only. The figures referred to by Mr Miller in his representation incorporated outbuildings that were present on the site. The overall point was that when considering the overall volume, floor space and bulk the proposal was a proportionate replacement and this was evident from comparison plans. Mr Butler stated that this was a point of technical disagreement between the Officer and the applicant’s agent. The Planning Authority did not accept that the boat house should be included in the residential curtilage of the dwelling. It sat within the red line and needed to be conditioned but was not within the curtilage. The policy was clear in Mr Butler’s view that only outbuildings within the actual residential curtilage could count towards the proportionality tests and in the Officer’s view the boat house sat outside of this. Mr Butler stated that the important point was the proportionality in relation to the visual impact in terms of harm was acceptable in the Officer’s view.

Councillor Law felt that he had not received a clear answer to this question and asked if the 60 percent detailed in the report was based on the dwelling and not any of the other ancillary buildings. The Chairman reminded Councillor Law that it was currently the time for raising questions for the agent and that he could raise his question again at the end of this section of the meeting.

Councillor Geoff Mayes raised some queries regarding the existing house. He queried if the existing property helped support the wall that ran alongside the road. Mr Miller stated that he could not offer an expert construction view however, what was proposed would not change the wall.

In response to Councillor Law’s question concerning the 60 percent figure, Mr Butler stated that this figure was based on the dwelling only.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Law in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· He had called the application in because the site sat within an extremely sensitive area and every application along the river in the past had been a Committee decision.

· The main issues included the size and proportionality of the proposal. An application submitted for the site a year previously had been considered by Officer’s to be disproportionate. The current Case Officer considered the current proposal to be proportionate. Councillor Law stated that he was undecided regarding the application.

· Councillor Law disagreed with the Officer’s view that the proposal would not have a greater visual impact than the current dwelling. Councillor Law felt that it would have a greater visual impact however, whether this visual impact was positive or negative was yet to be decided.

· Councillor Law felt that it was important to view the site from the river. He highlighted that there were lots of tree stumps and quoted from the Tree Officer that in 2018 a number of mature trees had been felled on the application site. Councillor Law stated that prior to 2018 you could not see much of the current dwelling due to a number of substantial trees. He noted from the plans that whilst a number of trees were going to be replanted they would not be replanted in front of the house to shield the view from the Thames Path and therefore there would be a different impact in terms of the proposal.

· Councillor Law noted from the report that the Officer’s recommendation was on balance. Neither Goring nor Basildon Parish Councils had objected to the application. Councillor Law felt that general opinion regarding the application was split. The CPRE had objected on the grounds that the proposal would have a negative visual impact.

· Councillor Law stressed that it was an important site that would have an influence on future applications in the area along the river.

· Councillor Law reiterated that he was undecided regarding the application. Regarding proportionality, if the proposal had been marginally smaller Councillor Law stated that he would be minded to approve the application. He looked forward to hearing the views of other Members on the Committee.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

The Chairman asked for the slide to be reshown, which showed the view looking west across the Thames. He asked if Councillor Law agreed with him that the top of the roof of the proposed new dwelling would sit just at the bottom edge of the windows of the current dwelling shown. Councillor Law agreed that it would. The new proposed house was set lower and the ridge was exactly where Councillor Pask had indicated.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Richard Somner requested some clarity regarding the boathouse. He felt that given the area it would be fairly normal to have a boat house and it seemed a shame to remove it. He queried if removing the boat house formed part of what had to be done or if it had been offered as something that could be done and sought views on this point. Mr Butler stated that it was considered that the boat house was outside of the curtilage however, it was within the red line and therefore was in control of the applicant and should be conditioned to be demolished. It was fairly dilapidated and was in close proximity to the Thames. Mr Butler reported that any reduction in built space was of visual benefit.

Councillor Tony Linden asked if approval of the application would rule out in the future a boat house being placed in the location where one currently stood. Mr Butler stated that anyone could put in a planning application, which would be considered on its merits.

Councillor Mayes queried if Officers had investigated the structure of the wall and the terrace area in front of the house. He queried if it would remain stable when the existing house was removed. Mr Dray stated that in the context of the application it was not a material planning consideration and would fall under building regulations. Mr Butler agreed with Mr Dray and added that because it was a retaining wall the Highways Authority would retain control of it.

Debate

Councillor Linden stated that he had looked at the application and his personal view was that he agreed with the Officer’s recommendation and was in support of the application.

Councillor Somner stated that he understood why Councillor Law was undecided about the application. Councillor Somner had used google maps to obtain different views of the site and he felt that the proposal would be an improvement to what currently stood on the site. Although the proposal would be imposing, it was possible that what would be gained included more greenery and a better view of the wood at the opposite side of the road. He understood that it was an on balance decision however, in Councillor Somner’s view the proposal would offer an improvement.

Councillor Alan Macro stated that the current dwelling was an unattractive 1970s building in a prominent position and the proposal would replace this with something large but was more attractive and in a lower position. Councillor Macro was therefore minded to support the Officer recommendation. Councillor Macro added that he had some concerns about the access to the site due to the visibility to the north being poor however, he understood that to improve this would involve demolishing the high wall which could not happen.

The Chairman stated that he had been at the site visit and although he concurred with Councillor Macro that the view from the access was not ideal, Members had been told clearly that this was a proposal for a replacement dwelling. The access was adequate for the current dwelling and therefore adequate for the proposed replacement. Mr Gareth Dowding concurred with this comment.

The Chairman stated that he understood why the application had been called in and this was because the proposal stood within one of the best views in West Berkshire across the Goring Gap. He felt that was proposal was an improvement and he found himself leaning towards supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Geoff Mayes asked if it would be practical to live in the old house whilst the new one was being built. Mr Butler confirmed that this was not a planning consideration.

Councillor Law stated that he had listened to the views of other Members and based on these proposed that the Officer recommendation be approved. This was seconded by the Chairman. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED thatthe Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.	Commencement of development The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2.	Demolition of existing dwelling Within six months of the substantial completion or first occupation of the replacement dwelling hereby permitted (whichever date is the earlier), or within an alternative timescale agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the existing dwelling on the site [West Lodge] shall be demolished entirely to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the land restored in accordance with the landscaping details approved pursuant to this application. Reason. To ensure two dwellings do not remain on site, contrary to Policies ADPP1, ADPP5 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, Policies C1 and C7 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, and the NPPF.
3.	Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below: Drawings prefixed 20-J3387, numbers 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109. BCP, C101. RCP. PSCP. All by Ascot Design. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
4.	Domestic permitted development rights restriction Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A to H of that Order shall be carried out, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and maintain a coherent design for the development in this sensitive location, in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006).
5.	Permitted development rights restriction (means of enclosure) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of that Order shall be erected, constructed, or materially altered without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. This restriction excludes any development expressly permitted by this permission, and does not prevent repairs or replacements (in full or in part) that do not materially affect the external appearance of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure. Reason: To prevent the erection of such development which may have an adverse impact on the rural character and appearance of the area, or fail to conserve the open landscape of the AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006).
6.	Archaeological investigation No development including site clearance shall take place within the application area until a Stage 1 written scheme of investigation (WSI) for a programme of archaeological work has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, and the programme and methodology of site evaluation and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works. If heritage assets of archaeological interest are identified by Stage 1, then for those parts of the site which have archaeological interest a Stage 2 WSI shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI no site clearance work or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, which shall include: (a) The Statement of significance and research objectives, the programme and methodology of archaeological site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works. (b) The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting archaeological material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the Stage 2 WSI. Reason: To ensure that any significant archaeological remains that are found are adequately recorded. Such an approach follows the guidance set out in paragraph 205 of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework and is accordance with the requirements of Policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan (2006-2026). A pre-commencement condition is required because the archaeological investigations will need to take place throughout demolition and construction activities.
7.	Lighting strategy (AONB/Ecology) No external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall: (a) Identify those areas on the site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance. (b) Show how and where external lighting will be installed so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species. (c) Include isolux contour diagram(s) of the proposed lighting. (d) Ensure all lighting levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers. No external lighting shall be installed within the application site except in accordance with the above strategy. Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site, and to conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
8.	Construction Method Statement No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMS. The CMS shall include measures for: (a) A site set-up plan during the works; (b) Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (c) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; (d) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; (e) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding including any decorative displays and/or facilities for public viewing; (f) Temporary access arrangements to the site, and any temporary hard-standing; (g) Wheel washing facilities; (h) Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction; (i) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; (j) Hours of construction and demolition work; (k) Hours of deliveries and preferred haulage routes. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). A pre-commencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations.
9.	Tree protection scheme No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing. The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012. All such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; tree protection installation measures may be required to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.
10.	Electric vehicle charging points (approved plans) The replacement dwelling shall not be first occupied until an electric vehicle charging point has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter, the charging point shall be maintained, and kept available and operational for electric vehicles at all times. Reason: To secure the provision of charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.
11.	Demolition, Construction and Traffic Management Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Demolition, Construction and Traffic Management Plan, Draft 2 dated 13^th September 2021. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
12.	Parking (approved plans) The replacement dwelling shall not be first occupied until vehicle parking and turning spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out). Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring (of private cars and/or private light goods vehicles) at all times. Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.
13.	Gates set back Any gates to be provided at the existing access to the highway, where vehicles will enter or leave the site, shall open away from the adjoining highway and be set back a distance of at least 5 metres from the edge of the highway. Reason: In the interest of road safety and to ensure that vehicles can be driven off the highway before the gates are opened. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
14.	Ecology SMP The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in strict accordance with the recommendations made in the Site Management Plan of August 2021 by Elite Ecology. Reason: To conserve protected species and other ecological assets on the site in accordance with Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the National Planning Policy Framework.
15.	Soft landscaping No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed soft landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, and any other supporting information. All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first occupation of the new dwelling/final demolition of the existing dwelling (whichever occurs first). Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved. Reason: Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; and landscaping measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.
16.	Hard landscaping (prior approval) No development shall take place until a hard landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping scheme shall include details of any boundary treatments (e.g. walls, fences) and hard surfaced areas (e.g. driveways, paths, patios, decking) to be provided as part of the development. The replacement dwelling hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the hard landscaping of the site has been completed in accordance with a hard landscaping scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include how the hard landscaping incorporates the demolished dwelling into the overall scheme. Reason: Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; and landscaping measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.
17.	Ground levels and finished floor levels No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed ground levels, and finished floor levels of the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land. These details are required before development commenced because insufficient information accompanies the application, and the agreed details will affect early construction activities. This condition is applied in accordance with the NPPF, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD (June 2006). A pre-commencement condition is required because the ground levels will need to be determined before construction takes place.
18.	Spoil No development shall take place until details of how all spoil arising from the development will be used and/or disposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall: (a) Show where any spoil to remain on the site will be deposited; (b) Show the resultant ground levels for spoil deposited on the site (compared to existing ground levels); (c) Include measures to remove all spoil from the site (that is not to be deposited); (d) Include timescales for the depositing/removal of spoil. All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP5 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is required because spoil may arise throughout development.
19.	Materials The construction of the dwelling shall not take place until samples, and an accompanying schedule, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials. Reason: To ensure that the external materials respect the character and appearance of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006). A pre-commencement condition is required because the approved materials will be used throughout construction.

Supporting documents: