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

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 20/01083/FUL, Quill Cottage, Craven Road, Inkpen

Proposal:

Replacement dwelling.

 

Location:

Quill Cottage, Craven Road, Inkpen, Hungerford, RG17 9DX.

 

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Jones.

 

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE planning permission.

 

 

Minutes:

(Councillor James Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01083/FUL in respect of a replacement dwelling.

2.            Sarah Melton 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 proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

3.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from the applicant, Ashley Jones.

5.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Applicant’s Submission

Our ambition is straightforward. We wish to create a better home for our family by replacing an unattractive 4 bedroom bungalow with an attractive and sustainable, 4 bedroom home of high quality design and construction.

We would like to address the WAPC agenda report, with the hope that our application, which is widely supported by neighbours and local residents, receives a fair hearing at committee.

1.    Height

This is a two storey dwelling with reduced eaves and bedrooms pushed into the loft space. There is no scope, as in WAPC agenda, 1.1, to provide further accommodation in the loft. As the officer rightly identifies, the available loft height is a maximum of 1.6m at the ridge.

The proposed property will be 30cm higher and not 1.7m higher than the telegraph pole, as suggested by the officer in WAPC site photographs page 12. This photo is misleading due to perspective. Neighbouring dwelling The Glenn is circa 2.5m higher than the proposed dwelling. Relative building heights are demonstrated, to scale, on drawing 062A

2.    Size

WAPC agenda, 1.6 details existing gia as the sum total of individual room areas. By RICS definition GIA includes internal structures. As measured on CAD, existing gia is 178sqm, not 165sqm.

WAPC agenda, 6.8 provides an analysis of the scale of the existing and proposed dwellings. The figures are based on part of the existing bungalow. As the officer notes: It is important to note that the measurements of the existing dwelling are based on what is visible from the public domain, the current bungalow is staggered rather that flush as the proposed dwelling is, this is to assess the size in terms of visual impact:

We strongly object to this as a method of analysis and believe that it is fundamentally misleading to committee. Policy C7 does not differentiate between parts of the dwelling. There are large parts of the proposed dwelling that would not be visible from the public domain, yet this is not accounted for.

The D&A statement provides a true comparison:

Footprint: existing 197.5sqm, proposed 180.6sqm, decrease 8.5%

GIA: existing 178sqm, proposed 287sqm, increase 61.2%

Frontage: existing 22.23sqm, proposed 15.19sqm, decrease 31.6%

3.    Quality

WAPC agenda, concludes that dormers are inappropriate 6.27, and that the proposed materials are alien to the street scene 6.29.

We disagree, and propose that the designs meet with the predominant characteristics outlined in the Inkpen Village Design statement p15:

      i.        i The majority of houses are two storey and constructed of red brick

    ii.        ii Some roofs are thatched but more generally roofs are tile or slate at 45 degree pitch set low on the external walls

   iii.        iii The first floor ceiling is often in the roof space with dormer windows

   iv.        iv Windows are generally side hung timber casements

Not withstanding this, we would accept a condition requiring final approval of external materials.

4.    Landscape

WAPC agenda, 6.26 objects to the brick landscape wall within the site. We will omit this from the application if conditional to approval.

6.            The Chairman noted that the information from the update sheets had not been part of Sarah Melton’s presentation. He queried whether she would like to expound on them before the Ward Member presentation. Sarah Melton took the opportunity to inform the Committee that the measurement of 1.7m in the original report had been an error. However, she was certain of her assessment of the measurements she had taken off the submitted, to-scale plans. In terms of Inkpen Design Guidance, not all guidance was relevant to all areas of Inkpen. Her assessment was  based on the street scene and surrounding development of Craven Road where the site was located

Ward Member Representation

7.            Councillor Claire Rowles and James Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·                     Councillor Claire Rowles remarked that before her first visit to the cottage she had had no concerns about officer’s assessment of the application and viewed it as a typical case of over development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Only after visiting the site had their views changed. She and Councillor James Cole had called-in the application to challenge the officer’s interpretation of C7, particularly based on its application to other approved schemes. They felt that the proposed scheme would enhance rather than detract from the surrounding area, and would be more in keeping with neighbouring buildings.

·                     Councillor James Cole did not find what he expected on his visit to Quill Cottage and had some concerns with the officer’s report. He felt that the planning officer had interpreted the rules to ignore a large part of the existing building. To quote the architect:

“If the single storey, set back part of the existing building at the side isn’t worth counting, then surely the single storey section of the proposed building, which is entirely at the rear, has even less impact on the street scene.”

·                     Yet this had been counted in full. He had compiled a table to compare the measurements of the existing and proposed buildings and doubted the veracity of the officer’s calculations.

·                     Councillor Claire Rowles continued that in the report it was noted that the property was visible from the adjoining public right of way (PROW). She had walked down the PROW and it was clear that the property was screened by a large number of tall trees, however what was visible from the footpath was a large modern house in a gated development, which caused her more concern than the proposed development.

·                     Councillor Rowles considered a site visit was essential to make a decision on this proposal, as there was no photograph contained in the pack provided that compared the height of the house with those surrounding it, and an important plan mentioned in the report was missing. In view of the discrepancies in the calculations of size and scale and the lack of a site visit, she urged the Committee to consider a deferment so that more information could be provided.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

8.            Councillor Tony Vickers questioned whether the Ward Members had stood in the PROW that emerged opposite the property. He had undertaken a personal site visit, as he too considered it was important to view sites in person, rather than relying on photographs. Councillor Rowles confirmed that she had not walked the PROW opposite the property.

9.            Councillor Jeff Cant noted that the Ward Members appeared to have a difference of opinion with the planning officers. He asked whether the parties had been able to discuss the areas of conflict, or if they were in dispute. Councillor James Cole answered that it was remarkable how little discussion there had been between the applicant and the planning officer. The applicant had complained to him on this point. There had therefore been no means of resolving the differences. This was one of the reasons why the Ward Members felt this decision should be deferred.

10.         The Chairman asked whether the agent had taken up this lack of consultation with the planning department. Councillor James Cole was not aware that the agent had made any such direct complaint.

Questions to Officers

11.         Councillor Howard Woollaston noted that the report mentioned a significant increase in glazing in all four elevations. He understood these comments with regard to the rear of the property, however from the front elevation, he observed that it did not seem to be overly fenestrated, in his opinion. Sarah Melton explained that the glazing was not as prevalent in the front as to the rear, but it was still an increase, in her view.

12.         Councillor James Cole queried how the officer had reached her assessment on the measurements on the comparable elements of the properties. Sarah Melton explained that the measurements were what would be visible from the public realm i.e. Craven Road. Following representations from the applicant she had included the additional measures. All measurements were taken off the submitted plans.

13.         Councillor Woollaston asked whether there had been any local objections. Sarah confirmed that she had received one letter of support from a neighbour and one objection from the Parish Council.

14.         Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the Ward Members had asked for a deferment. He queried if there were any benefits to a deferment. Sarah Melton expressed the view that the application could not be amended to make it acceptable. She had made a site visit and it had not changed her view. She was confident in her measurements, as they had been taken off the submitted plans.

15.         Councillor Cant was of the opinion that with such a clear professional view from the planning officer, and contending views from the Ward Members, this discussion was not worth pursuing unless Members had numbers that both parties could agree on.

16.         Councillor Woollaston was concerned about the report and had driven around the site. He queried the reports statement that there were no dormer windows in surrounding properties, as he had counted six within half a mile of the development. Sarah Melton noted that her report was regarding houses in a closer proximity.

Debate

17.         Councillor Vickers considered this to be a difficult application. He felt that the scheme did not have an adverse impact on the setting within the wider landscape, except for the view from the PROW opposite the proposed house, or any individual heritage assets and their settings. He viewed it as questionable as to whether it had a significant adverse effect on the character and local distinctiveness of the local area. However there would be an increase in light spillage, but he felt that could be managed by a landscaping condition.

18.         The proposed development was considerable bigger, but he did not feel that there was sufficient evidence under C7 to refuse the application. He conjectured as to whether there could be a reason for refusal under CS14, as the development did not enhance the character and appearance of the area. He was not strongly supportive of the officer’s recommendation, and on balance he would support the applicant. He concurred with Councillor Rowles that there was no impact on the footpath down the side of the house.

19.         Councillor James Cole noted that the applicant was quite happy to change the materials used, for example the flint wall.

20.         Councillor Phil Barnett noted the importance of site visits, however, he had been unable to visit the site on this occasion. He was in a similar mind to Councillor Vickers and on balance, he was in favour of supporting the applicant.

21.         Councillor Hilary Cole was pleased that the Ward Members had called in the application to challenge the Council’s planning policies, however she disagreed with their assessment. She believed that the key to the interpretation of C7 lay within paragraphs 6.13 and 6.14 on page 22 of the agenda. She drew Members attention to policy C7 of the Housing Site Allocation Development Plan Document (HSADPD) point 47, which referred to need to be aware of the practice of purchasing and demolishing small rural properties within the AONB, in order to replace them with more substantial properties, which did not conserve or enhance the area.

22.         Councillor Hilary Cole also directed Members to consider Policy C3 regarding the design of houses in the countryside, points 4.24 and 4.26, whereby a design should be harmonised with the distinctive local characteristics and informed by the AONB management plan. She did not agree that the design of the development fit with the street scene or was an outstanding example of modern design. She acknowledged that the agent and applicant had given assurances that the development would be of a high quality, however she would be interested whether any consideration had been taken of the Council’s Environment Strategy and its pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030.

23.         Councillor Hilary Cole felt that officers had correctly interpreted policy C7 and that Members should also consider policy C3. She therefore proposed to accept officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. Councillor Cant seconded the proposal.

24.         Councillor Abbs opined that he concurred with Councillor Rowles and James Cole and would have proposed to defer the application to a later meeting in order to receive clarity on the details of the proposal.

25.         Councillor Hilary Cole explained that she saw no need for deferment as there was enough information in the officer’s report. If the applicant was offering to change the appearance of the property, that would be considered as more than a minor amendment to conditions and would therefore need a new application. She further reminded Members that it was not a requirement of any panning application that a site visit had to be made. Members preferred to see the site, but this was not a requirement.

26.         Councillor Abbs noted his concern as to a possible precedent being set of designs with large expansions of volume. Councillor James Cole had drawn the Committee’s attention to inconsistencies regarding decisions on previous applications as to what increase in volume was allowable. He conjectured as to whether a deferment would allow for some simple amendments to be made to the design.

27.         Councillor James Cole remarked that he genuinely had concerns as to the differences in the calculations. He felt that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application, the applicant would go to appeal and the Council’s defence would be based on the wrong figures. His primary reason for asking for a deferment was to get clarity on the calculations.

28.         The Chairman asserted that the application has been considered by a credible, professional planning officer. He pointed out that Councillor James Coles’ assessment could equally be called into question.

29.         The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Cant to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was rejected.

30.         Councillor Woollaston proposed to defer the application. This was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

31.         Councillor Clive Hooker made a statement that the current temporary arrangements regarding site visits were far from ideal, but complied with the government’s instructions to Planning Authorities to enable decisions to be made in a timely manner. Virtual meetings were consistent with how the Planning Inspectorate were operating and other Planning Authorities across the country. It would set a difficult precedent if this application were to be deferred until normal site visits could be resumed. As chairman he saw no greater need for a site visit to be made in respect of this application to any other.  Despite complaints from the public, parish councils and agents this committee could demonstrate consistency in the process by which applications were determined during this period, and to deviate from this could lead to accusations of lack of consistency and fairness. Deferring this application indefinitely until site visits could take place was an important decision to make as the Council had agreed to work with this system of non-site visits, as to such time as they could be resumed safely.

32.         Councillor Vickers noted he would vote against the proposal to defer, as he felt the Committee had enough information with which to make a decision.

33.         The Chairman invited the planning officers to comment before the vote. Simon Till wished to endorse the Chairman’s statement and expand on Councillor Vickers comment. Grounds for deferment had been raised during the meeting which indicated that a temporary deferment, for the clarification of calculations and the PROW, was requested and the application should therefore be considered at the next available committee. Therefore, officers asked for clarity as to the timescale of the deferment.

34.         Councillor Woollaston advised that he had proposed a deferment to gain clarity on the officer’s report on sizing and to enable the applicant to re-think some of the elevations, which might resolve the issues.

35.         Councillor Cant recognised the policy issues raised by Councillor Hillary Cole and agreed that a short deferral would ensure that the calculations could be agreed and assure the Committee that they had all the information before making their decision.

36.         The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Abbs to defer the application. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to defer the application to the next available meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee.

Supporting documents: