Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Applications 11/02395/HOUSE and 11/02396/LBC2 in respect of a new detached garage and office to the rear alongside house.

Councillor Graham Pask confirmed that a single debate would be held for both applications, but there would be a separate decision made in respect to each application. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Barry Morris, Parish Council representative, Mr Jake Brown, [name restricted], objectors, and Mr Simon Hynes and Ms Lisa Witham, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Morris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                 On considering the most recently refused planning application, the Parish Council had considered it to be inappropriately bulky and were therefore opposed to that application. Since that time the applicants had consulted all interested parties, including the Parish, and this was felt to be a far more acceptable proposal which would have little impact on the street scene.

·                 Only one letter of objection had been received from within the parish. This was from the tenant of a neighbouring property (Sheldon) who was concerned with the loss of light to their property. However, the Parish felt this issue had been adequately covered by Planning in the report.

·                 A Parish Council representative had attended the site visit and did not have any concerns. The Parish Council were in support of the application.

Members noted that one of the objectors, Mr Jake Brown, was a West Berkshire Council Planning Officer, however, his attendance was only in the capacity of an objector. The Chairman acknowledged that the Members of the Committee all knew Mr Brown in his professional capacity.

[name restricted] in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                 She was speaking on behalf of the objectors to both planning applications. They were of the view that the garage and the office building would inappropriately close the existing gap between buildings. The gap needed to be retained as it contributed to the street scene and provided a suitable setting for the listed building.

·                 The proposal would block views from her home (Sheldon) and would have an urbanising impact on the area.

·                 The application would bring no benefits to the listed building and this was necessary in order to combat negative impacts.

·                 The half-hip aspect of the design, which would face the road, would be an unsympathetic feature.

·                 The proposal would significantly limit the amount of daylight on the Sheldon property as it would have an overbearing impact, most particularly on the well used kitchen and lounge. In addition, the kitchen window would overlook the proposed garage. Although the application had been improved, the main bulk of the outbuildings would still be visible.

·                 If approved, the garage would be only one metre from the boundary fence.

·                 The impact on the garden area was also an important consideration. Much of the garden was already overlooked and only the area outside the kitchen had any privacy. However, this would be lost by the height and close proximity of the garage and office.

·                 [name restricted] respectfully asked for refusal of the application to avoid the harm it would bring, particularly to the setting of the listed building, the loss of light to the Sheldon property and the overbearing impact on the outdoor space of Sheldon.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe queried whether surrounding properties also had the half-hip design. Mr Brown confirmed that this was the case, but these did not face the road as would be the case with Bryar Cottage.

Mr Brown also confirmed, in response to a question from Councillor Brian Bedwell, that it would be a benefit if the proposed garage roof was flat as it would reduce the height.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked the objectors to comment on the references in the report to loss of light. This included a statement that there would be no loss of direct sunlight between 9am - 10am from November to February. The report also stated that the available day light to the side windows of Sheldon would not reduce by more than 20%. Mr Brown advised that the calculations for this had not been made publicly available and he was therefore unable to analyse this in detail. However, he did point out that if the light was reduced at or above 20% then this would become unacceptable in line with the BRE publication ‘Site Layout and Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. He also reiterated that the kitchen would be overshadowed and would only receive direct sunlight in the early part of the day.

Councillor Alan Law commented that he had gained a different perception of the loss of light on entering the neighbouring Sheldon property and asked whether the case officer had done likewise in assessing the impact. Mr Brown advised that this had not been the case.

Mr Alston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                 He lived in Rose Cottage which was directly opposite Bryar Cottage, and his property and Sheldon would be most affected by this application. His view of Bryar Cottage showed that it was not detached.

·                 In his 20 years of residing at Rose Cottage, there had been four owners of Bryar Cottage, it had been subject to two fires and had clearly needed to be rebuilt on both occasions. Bryar Cottage was formerly two small cottages and originally had a tiled roof (this was many years ago). The planning permission granted in 1996, which had since elapsed, was for a similar scheme.

·                 He was keen to see Bryar Cottage looked after and the current owners had shown a willingness to do so.

·                 North Street had a huge diversity of houses, many of which already had garages which had been built at the agreement of neighbours as well as extensions. He did not therefore feel that the addition of a garage would look out of place.

·                 The garage had been set back when compared to earlier plans to reduce its impact. He had examined the 3D model produced of the site and felt that the garage would in fact be an attractive addition.

·                 He felt the Planning website did not show the balanced views for the application. If the views of only local people were considered then the application would not have come before the Committee, as the majority of concern came from people living outside the local area.

·                 He did not feel that refusal of the proposal would be reasonable or fair on the basis that it was a listed building.

·                 The garage and office would be finished to a high standard which would help it blend in with existing buildings. Approval would also create work for the building industry.

Councillor Quentin Webb asked Mr Alston to give his view on the impact of the garage on the neighbouring Sheldon property. Mr Alston felt that as the garage would be set further back from the previous application, it would allow more light to enter the neighbouring property. The 3D model, which was able to show the impact in terms of loss of light over different times of the year and times of day, had helped to better illustrate the impact on Sheldon and Mr Alston felt that the garage/office would be small enough to sit in the existing shadow and not exacerbate the impact.

Mr Hynes in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                 He purchased Bryar Cottage approximately four and a half years ago. It was their dream home and they had great neighbours.

·                 The previous owners had made him aware of the previous planning permission which had since expired. It was his intention to resurrect this as he felt it was a natural space to incorporate a garage and not an unreasonable proposal.

·                 He wrote to each of the objectors for the most recently refused planning application to advise that he had sought to address their issues and create a more sympathetic build. He was encouraged that these objectors did not object on this occasion. The majority of the objections came from the tenants of Sheldon and their relatives. While he respected and understood their issues, he had gone to a huge effort to minimise the impact of the proposed development which would largely sit in the existing shadow of his property. A 3D model had been devised and a range of photographs had been produced to help evidence this. This showed that the front window of Sheldon would not be obstructed and there would be a reduced impact on other windows.

·                 The double garage would be single storey and of standard width. The height of the proposed garage had been kept as low as possible and would be a similar height to the fence between the properties. The half-hip was a deliberate inclusion to minimise the impact and increase light. The height of the office would be lower than the main building.

·                 The Sheldon property had many shrubs in place which previously impacted on the level of light they received. These had recently been cut back.

·                 The Case Officer, Cheryl Willett, had been very helpful and had invested a great deal of time on the potential loss of light. The report concluded that, on balance, the loss of light was not sufficient to justify refusal of the application.

·                 He had incurred a personal cost in seeking to resolve the issues that had been raised which he estimated at 10% of the overall cost of the build. It was by no means his intention to devalue his property.

Councillor Brian Bedwell asked Mr Hynes if he had visited his neighbours (Sheldon) to help understand their issues and better assess the impact of his proposed development. Mr Hynes explained that while he had not done so, he would have welcomed the opportunity. However, he had made improvements from the previous design and did seek comments from his neighbours prior to submitting plans. The 3D model also enabled analysis to be undertaken. Ms Witham added that the 3D model was able to consider the impact during different times of day and of the year.

Councillor Bale asked for clarification on the dimensions proposed for the outbuildings. Mr Hynes confirmed that the garage would be 6 metres in width and 6 metres in depth, and the office 4.6 metres in width and 4.3m in depth. Ms Witham added that the garage would be 4.4 metres to the ridge and while other options had been considered for the roof, this was felt to be the best one.

Councillor Bale then asked Officers for confirmation that the proposed double garage was indeed of standard size. Gareth Dowding confirmed that this was the case.

Councillor Bedwell then asked for clarification on whether the building would continue to be listed considering it had been rebuilt following two fires. David Pearson advised that he had not been made aware of the fires previously and was unable to confirm the basis on which it had remained listed. However, Officers had considered the matter and decided it was appropriate to proceed on the basis that a listed building consent was required. He also added that the Conservation Officer was minded to recommend approval of listed building consent. David Pearson then stated that Officers felt that the key issue for Members to consider was the impact on neighbours rather than the listed building. Liz Patient agreed that whether the building should still be listed was not a key consideration for Members particularly as Members did not know any of the facts surrounding the previous fires at the property or the extent to which they had damaged the building. The application was before Members as a listed building consent and they should consider it accordingly.

Having heard views from the tenant of Sheldon, Councillor Tim Metcalfe queried whether the owner had lodged an objection. David Pearson was unable to give confirmation on this point, but stated that the greater considerations for Members were the issues being raised rather than who raised them. Councillor Pask added that decisions needed to be made based on local and national policy rather than the level of support or objection.

Councillor Quentin Webb questioned the level of regard that could be given to the 3D model. David Pearson advised that a number of illustrations had been submitted which showed the impact of the development at different times. However, this was unfamiliar technology and there was the potential risk that it could be manipulated in some way. Planning were more used to receiving conventional drawings that were required to be drawn to scale and Mr Pearson recommended that Members determine the application based on these.

Councillor Alan Macro felt that a reduction in light of up to 20% would be significant. He also referred to the update report which stated that a previous reason for refusal was that the outbuilding would fill the existing gap and this would be detrimental to the street scene. Although the outbuildings proposed for this application would be set further back, they would still fill this gap.

Councillor Law referred to the point made by Officers that this was a finely balanced proposal and repeated his concern with regard to the impact on the Sheldon property, which he was able to fully appreciate after entering that property at the site visit. Councillor Law therefore proposed, against Officers’ recommendation, to refuse planning permission for application 11/02395/HOUSE due to the negative impact on the amenity of Sheldon caused by a combination of loss of light and the visual impact; and the negative impact caused by the filling of the existing gap by the proposed outbuildings to the detriment of the street scene and character of the area. This was seconded by Councillor Royce Longton.

Councillor Richard Crumly was of a differing view. He felt that this would be a reasonable addition and the garage would not be overbearing. It would in fact supplement the street scene and therefore remove any concern over the filling of the gap. Councillor Crumly was in support of the application.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe felt that a benefit of the site visit was to observe that the hedges/bushes on the Sheldon property had recently been cut back. Prior to this he believed that these hedges were quite tall and would have blocked the light being received by Sheldon.

The proposal to refuse planning application 11/02395/HOUSE was then put to the vote and agreed by Members.

In terms of planning application 11/02396/LBC2, David Pearson advised Members that unless specific reasons for refusal could be identified which were felt to be of harm to the listed building and which could be defended at a potential appeal, then the application should be approved. He added that this application could be approved regardless of the decision taken on the planning permission.

Councillor Quentin Webb proposed to accept Officers’ recommendation to grant listed building consent of application number 11/02396/LBC2 as he did not feel this would have an impact on the listed building or on neighbouring properties. This was seconded by Councillor Crumly and approved by the Committee.

For clarification, Councillor Pask confirmed that while listed building consent had been granted, the planning permission had not and development could therefore not proceed.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission of application number 11/02395/HOUSE for the following reasons:

The negative impact on the amenity of Sheldon caused by a combination of loss of light and the visual impact; and the negative impact caused by the filling of the existing gap by the proposed outbuildings to the detriment of the street scene and character of the area.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant listed building consent for application 11/02396/LBC2 subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.       The developmenthereby permitted shallbe startedwithin three yearsfrom the dateof thispermission.

Reason:  To enable theLocal Planning Authorityto reviewthe desirability of thedevelopmentto complywith Section 91of theTown and CountryPlanning Act (asamended by Section51 ofthe Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act2004) should itnot be startedwithin a reasonabletime.

2.       The developmenthereby approved shallbe carriedout in accordancewith drawing numbers21645-01A and 21645-02A received on 20^th February 2012.

Reason:  To ensure thatthe development is carriedout in accordancewith the submitteddetails assessed againstPolicy OVS2 ofthe West BerkshireDistrict Local Plan1991-2006 Saved Policies2007 and the guidance contained in PPS5.

3.       The materials to be used in the development hereby approved shall be as specified on the plans or on the application forms. 

Reason: In the interests of the character of the listed building in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan, Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and the guidance contained in PPS5.