Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 10/01948/HOUSE in respect of the conversion and extension of a garage to provide living accommodation.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Caspar Williams and Mr. Richard New, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr. Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The principle part of the proposed accommodation was for a home/office use as both Mr. & Mrs. Williams were self employed;

·                    Inkpen did not have a large settlement boundary but was located in a settled area;

·                    Although the proposal represented a 167% increase on the original dwelling Mr. Williams felt that policies were far from clear and he had examples of planning decisions made on appeal which were over the 100% mark;

·                    The proposed extension was well designed and Mr. Williams had no clear understanding of why it would have a negative impact on the local countryside;

·                    There were other examples of similar extensions in the local area;

·                    Mr. Williams stated that the original house had been quite small and he felt that the proposed extension would fit in with the surrounding area without contravening planning policies;

In response to a query the Planning Officer clarified that although the increase in footprint was limited the volume would increase considerably. The double garage was currently 52 square metres with a proposed increase of 86 square metres. Overall this would result in an increase on the whole plot of 167% in volume from the original dwelling. The floor area was primarily focused on in planning policy but the volume would also come into play.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld stated that if the current dwelling was demolished the Council would likely give permission for a larger property on the site. Councillor Stansfeld could recall a number of instances where this had happened in Inkpen. Any new application for a replacement dwelling would take into account permitted development rights and incorporate that into any planning permission.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, as Ward Member, noted Planning Policy ENV.24 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan, which was the key development plan policy for establishing the principle of development. It stated that the extension of existing dwellings in the countryside would be permitted subject to certain criteria. One of these criteria was that the proposed development would not result in an extended dwelling disproportionate in size to the original. Councillor Stansfeld was of the opinion that the proposed extension to a modern house would not be disproportionate to the size of the plot. The site was well screened and the proposed development had the support of the Parish Council. Councillor Stansfeld therefore felt that this proposal would not harm the character of the area and should therefore be supported.

In considering the above application Members queried whether the approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent. The Planning Officer confirmed that it would set a precedent. West Berkshire had a significant number of houses within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where the owners would like to extend the property. The AONB demanded additional protection and therefore extensions to the lower range of the SPG band were restricted. To go beyond that would set a dangerous precedent.

Members asked what would be allowed as a replacement on the site if the current dwelling was demolished. The Planning Officer was of the opinion that it would be unlikely that anything bigger would be allowed to be rebuilt on the site.

Councillor Irene Neill referred to a recent appeal decision in respect of a dwelling at Tutts Clump which was for a similar proposal and it was allowed by the Inspector. Members expressed the need to be consistent across the district when considering applications against this policy and felt that further consideration should be given as to whether the policy was appropriate in each location.

In response to a query in respect of the floor area the Planning Officer confirmed that there was a 65% increase over and above the 1982 consent. This application was a 25% increase on the existing. When all the extensions to the property had been added up it came to the 167% increase.

Councillor Alan Law advised that when he had been briefed on the proposed application and he had read the report there appeared to be two areas of principle in respect of the planning policy. The absolute size – the policy stated that the size of the original house should be taken into consideration; and creeping – the policy limited the number of times that a property could be extended. Councillor Law asked the Committee to take that into consideration when making a decision.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld proposed a motion for approval of the application with conditions and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers. Following a vote the motion was lost by 3 votes to 6.

An alternative motion was therefore proposed by Councillor Keith Woodhams for refusal of the application and was seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant. The motion was carried by 6 votes to 3.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld asked the Development Control Manager to go around his Ward to look at the number of houses which had been demolished and replaced by larger dwellings.

Councillor Roger Hunneman agreed that the policy was very opaque as it was unclear whether it referred to floor area or volume and it was felt that clarification on that aspect was required. The Planning Officer stated that the AONB was a key central part of the Core Strategy and therefore the ENV policies would need to be reviewed at a later stage. In the meantime, the Inspectors’ decisions would determine whether the policies were upheld or not.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.      The application site is located outside any designated settlement boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The existing dwelling has already been substantially extended.  The proposed garage extension would increase the size of the dwelling by approximately 53% (in terms of floor space) over the existing dwelling and a total of 167% over the original dwelling.  It would therefore further increase the amount of physical intrusion within this sensitive location and result in an extended dwelling disproportionate in size to the original, contrary to Policy ENV.24 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (Saved Policies 2007).

2.      The proposed garage extensions are not subservient to the original house and would significantly add to the domination of the original house by extensions. The proposal fails to demonstrate high quality design and is therefore contrary to the provision of policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (Saved Policies 2007), the general guidance of design contained in PPS 1 and the specific guidance on the design of extension contained in West Berkshire Council’s ‘Quality Design’ SPD.