Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/03073/NONMAT in respect of non-material amendments to Planning Permission 12/00623/FULD (erection of a new dwelling house). Amendments: omission of decorative brickwork; amended window appearance; and amended bargeboard appearance.

Following the Planning Officer, Bob Dray’s, introduction to the report, Councillor Sheila Ellison questioned the requirement for decorative brickwork as this was not apparent in the neighbouring property. Bob Dray explained that this formed part of the planning application and there was a standard condition for development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings etc. However, planning legislation did allow for some variations from approved planning applications and the consideration for Members was whether or not the variations for this application constituted a material amendment.

Councillor Alan Macro queried the process that would be undertaken should Members determine that the amendments were a material change. David Pearson explained that if the application was refused as being a material amendment, then the applicant could submit a S73 Application which would seek approval to make a material change from an approved application. It would be considered as a new application and could potentially come before Committee for determination.

In response to a query from Councillor Tim Metcalfe, Bob Dray confirmed that there was no protruding brickwork on the dwelling.

Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    She was speaking on behalf of local residents and Burghfield Parish Council. It was felt that the amendments made amounted to a material change when compared to the approved application.

·                    The approved design was in keeping with Burghfield’s Village Design Statement which had been adopted by West Berkshire Council. However, the built dwelling was not in keeping with the Village Design Statement or the street scene due to the omission of decorative brickwork and amended window appearance. It was also a large property so was therefore very prominent.

Councillor Alan Law queried whether there was a specific reference to the appearance of windows in this part of Burghfield within the Village Design Statement. In response, Councillor Jackson-Doerge read from the Village Design Statement which stated that ‘The design of windows and doors should be in character with the building and in harmony with the architectural style of the surrounding development.’ This point was in relation to Burghfield as a whole.

Councillor Royce Longton, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    He agreed with the view that the amendments constituted a material change and therefore the application should be refused.

·                    The erected dwelling was dull in appearance and detracted from the street scene, this would not have been the case with the approved application. In addition, the petitioners who objected to this application had no issue with the approved application.

Councillor Graham Pask expressed sympathy with the concerns that had been raised and found it difficult to understand why the approved plans had not been followed. Design was an important aspect when considering a planning application and it was for Members to decide whether the amendments made with this application, when compared to the approved plans, were sufficient to warrant refusal. However, he did point out the fact that windows could be replaced with a different style in most houses without planning permission.

Councillor Richard Crumly gave his support to the points made. Planning permission had been granted for an attractive dwelling which would have been an addition to the area. However, the finished article was a disappointment. He felt it was unacceptable that the house had not been built in accordance with approved plans and was a material breach. Councillor Crumly could not therefore give his support to Officers’ recommendation to approve this application as a non-material amendment.

Councillor Ellison accepted that the approved dwelling would have enhanced the street scene, but she was of the view that the erected dwelling closely matched the neighbouring property and this could be the view of a Planning Inspector.

Councillor Pamela Bale queried whether the dropped kerb and its positioning was part of the application as it did not align with the garage. Bob Dray confirmed that this was approved as part of the planning application and it was not felt necessary for highway access to the garage to be enabled when sufficient parking was separately available.

Councillor Macro was of the view that the combination of different changes amounted to a material change, although he could not say that the erected dwelling was materially different to neighbouring properties.

Councillor Law commented that in his view the window appearance, brickwork and bargeboard appearance were similar to neighbouring properties. The Village Design Statement required new dwellings to be consistent with the street scene and on this basis he felt that the erected dwelling conformed with the street scene and therefore the Village Design Statement. However, it remained the case that the erected dwelling did not conform to the approved application. Councillor Law felt that on balance, the amendments were non-material.

David Pearson reminded Members of the view of the current and previous Governments that greater flexibility should be allowed for implementing planning permissions. Government legislation allowed for this type of change and they were not expected to reach a planning committee for consideration. He also explained that the view of successive Governments’ was that enforcement should be used as a last resort. Members needed to determine this application based on its planning merits.

Councillor Bale queried whether any inspection was undertaken during the development of this and other applications as this would be the ideal time to raise concerns. It would also be the opportune time for local residents and the Parish Council to come forward with concerns. David Pearson explained that there was not the resource to conduct this type of inspection and it was not therefore conducted routinely.

Councillor Metcalfe was of the view that the amended bargeboard appearance was more in keeping than the original application, the absence of decorate brickwork ‘quoins’ could be resolved by painting them on and while the windows were of a lesser quality they were in keeping with other dwellings in the area. He therefore proposed Officers’ recommendation to approve the non-material amendments.

Councillor Pask expressed concern at the message approval of this application could send out and stated that particular details of planning applications were considered when making decisions for the benefit of the street scene. David Pearson responded by returning to the view of successive Governments’ that there needed to be greater flexibility for implementing planning permissions. However, if Members felt that the changes did constitute material amendments and there were sound reasons for this view then refusal would be acceptable.

Councillor Brian Bedwell was concerned at the absence of planting to the front of the property as this would soften the appearance of the property. He noted that this, along with other conditions, was required before occupation of the property but queried how this could be enforced. Bob Dray agreed that many conditions were required to be implemented prior to occupation of the dwelling. If these were not adhered to then enforcement was still an option to be considered on the basis of breaching conditions and the applicant could potentially face a fine if failing to comply with a possible breach of condition notice. However, efforts were made to resolve issues before enforcement became an option.

Councillor Geoff Mayes commented that the approved permission would have been more costly and time consuming to build, i.e. it was the intention for the brickwork ‘quoins’ to be protruding, and the amended erection of the dwelling was a cost saving measure.

Councillor Law seconded Councillor Metcalfe’s proposal to approve the non-material amendment.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to approve the non-material amendments to Planning Permission 12/00623/FULD as shown on drawing numbers 013264/13C, 013264/19F, 013264/10B and 013264/11B.