Agenda item

Proposal:	Two storey rear extension and external alterations to existing dwelling, following demolition of existing outbuildings (resubmission of application 20/01193/HOUSE).
Location:	White Lodge, Donnington Grove.
Applicant:	Mr and Mrs Baynham
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in Section 8.

 

(Councillor Lynne Doherty declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a ward member for this application. As her  interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/00429/HOUSE in respect of White Lodge, Donnington Grove, Shaw-cum Donnington. Approval was sought for a two storey rear extension and external alterations to existing dwelling, following demolition of existing outbuildings (resubmission of application 20/01193/HOUSE).

2.      Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning) 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard confirmed that Highways Officers had no objections – access and car parking were not affected and a proposed gate would replace one that was already there.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Callan Powers, agent,  and Mr Simon Baynham, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

5.      Mr Powers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       This application sought planning permission for a two storey extension to an existing house.

·       Policy C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD set out a presumption in favour of extensions to existing houses in the countryside.

·       Since the site was last before the Committee, the footprint, width and height of the proposed extension had all been reduced. 

·       The appearance and architectural features of the proposal had also been changed with a more domestic appearance proposed than last time.

·       The revisions had significantly improved the appearance of the extension and a further drop in ridge height of the roof demonstrated the subservience of the proposed extension.

·       The proposal followed an earlier approved scheme for a two storey rear extension in which the ridge line of the extended roof matched the existing house, that scheme had an floor space area of about an additional 104sqm measured externally.

·       The current scheme where the roof ridge dropped below that of the main house extended to 166sqm externally, but factoring in the removal of some small outbuildings offset quite a bit of that increase.

·       Whilst previous approval had lapsed, nothing had changed in terms of the policy position or local circumstances since that approval.

·       The proposal was subservient to the main house and the visibility of the extension from the park would be limited.

·       The extension’s visibility from the rest of the Conservation Area would be very limited – just affecting the public right of way to the east of the house where there would be a lesser impact compared to the previously approved extension.

6.      Mr Baynham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       He thanked the Committee for visiting the site.

·       He had bought the property with his wife 3½ years ago, at which time planning consent for an extension had just been granted.

·       He had a number of concerns about the consented scheme; the eastern wall of the extension would have destroyed the hedge along the footpath for about 10 metres. This was a privacy issue as well as a planning and environmental issue. At the planning meeting last summer, the hedge seemed quite important to most of the Committee. If the extension was set back from the hedge, it would not only preserve the hedge but would also make the extension less prominent and therefore appear more subservient compared to the previous consented scheme.

·       The second issue with the consented scheme was that it created a dark space where it connected by providing an entrance or link with no habitable rooms in the link. This proposal resolved that problem as well as protecting the hedge but would require a slightly bigger footprint to achieve the same amount of habitable space.

·       In last year’s proposal he had wanted to further distinguish between the old and the new by having a step up. In the new proposal, he had removed the step which meant that the height of the proposed extension was now lower than the existing house and, importantly, lower than the previously consented scheme. This also made the extension less prominent and therefore more subservient than the consented scheme. 

·       He had listened to the previous concerns of the Committee and had tried to address as many as possible and he had also wanted to try and overcome the problems with the consented scheme.

·       The proposal now created a better, less prominent, four bedroom house than the five bedroom consented scheme. The improved amenity would not just be better for the current owners but also for future generations.

·       The house sat on a 1.2 acre plot and therefore the proposal and extension which were largely hidden from public view could not be considered as over-development. The proposed extension was almost invisible from any public footpath other than the one from the west and from this point, the extension would sit against the silhouette of the house.

·       There had been no objections to the proposal and it would provide a much better configured and usable house and a better amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

7.      Councillor Carolyne Culver asked how this application compared to the approved planning application in 2017 in terms of square footage and the length of the extension. Mr Powers replied that he was unable to give exact figures in terms of how far it came out, but the previously consented scheme ran in line with the site walls. This application did nudge out to one side although some of that was offset by it being inset on the other side. The external floor space of the 2017 scheme had been an additional 104sqm with the current scheme extending to 166sqm measured externally before taking into account the removal of outbuildings.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor Lynne Doherty in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       She had called this application in last summer and following its refusal she was pleased to note the Applicant had responded to the concerns raised regarding the size and design of the new proposal.

·       She was disappointed therefore that the Conservation Officer had continued to object as planning permission had been previously granted in this conservation area back in 2017 when it had been considered acceptable to put a two-storey extension into this area.

·       When Officers referred to the character as being altered, there had already been an agreement in place to alter that character from the 2017 application.

·       She felt that the Applicant had made every attempt to preserve the original lodge frontage which was what most people would see when coming down the Lane as far as they were allowed to do so, given that it was actually private property.

·       The rear of the property was very hidden, which was evident from the site visit.

·       Based on the plans submitted by Natural England, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the statutory protected nature of the conservation sites or landscapes.

·       The property was well screened both from Donnington Grove Park and from any near neighbours in Donnington Village. As a regular user of the park and its footpaths, Councillor Doherty assured Members that White Lodge was not visible at any time of the year. As an additional measure, the Applicant intended to preserve the fence and hedge to the rear of the property.

·       No objections had been received from the Parish Council or from any nearby residents.

·       Councillor Doherty disagreed with the Conservation Officer’s description of the approach to the property from Donnington Village. The first and only thing you would see when arriving to the white gate in the Village was the property itself. The extension would not be visible from this private approach and she did not support the conclusion that from this approach the proposal would detract from the primary of the existing building’s original purpose as a modest gatehouse set within spacious grounds.

·       The Conservation Officer continued to be concerned that the scale of the extension was not subservient to the original dwelling, but Councillor Doherty felt the staggered design enabled the existing dwelling to remain the focal point of the overall design.

·       The new scheme was lower than the consented scheme and when sat within 1.2 acres of private garden would not look large.

·       The application had been due to be heard in June 2021, but was postponed due to waiting for an additional consultation but even while objecting, the additional consultee, Berkshire Gardens Trust felt it should be noted, that in their view, the harm done by the proposed development was mitigated somewhat because there was no longer an entrance to the Grade II Registered Park and Garden from the east. The land belonging to White Lodge effectively blocked this former entrance and therefore its link to its former role as a modest gate lodge had already partially been severed to some extent.

·       A reason for refusal was because it sat within a sensitive area, yet within the same area, Donnington Grove Country Club had received permission for extensive works including a white new PVC glazed conservatory and a barn at the top of the park had also been built and developed over that period of time.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.      Members did not have any questions for the Ward Member.

Member Questions to Officers

10.   Councillor Adrian Abbs sought clarification that the 2017 application had lapsed. Mr Till confirmed that it had.

Debate

11.   Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate by stating that when the original application was refused by this Committee, she had voted for the refusal because she was a firm believer in planning policy being there for a specific reason. However, she had not at that time undertaken a site visit. For this application, she had made a site visit and had subsequently changed her mind completely. She indicated her high regard for Conservation Officers, but felt the building was already compromised as there was a very unsightly flat roof extension onto the original building and she considered that the proposed works would be an improvement. The extension would not be seen, since it was to the back of the property. She considered that the historic park and garden was already compromised by the golf course. She did not class the property as being located in the countryside because it sat adjacent to Donnington Village, only separated by a public footpath. In conclusion, whilst she was a great defender and proponent of Council policies, in this case, she proposed to make an exception and refuse Officer recommendation and vote in favour of the application.

12.   Councillor Abbs indicated that he was minded to take Officer’s advice and was not in a position to agree to Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal to approve the application. With regard to the 2017 approved application which had since lapsed, he felt this was now irrelevant. He appreciated that the owners had sought to address some of the concerns with the last proposal, but he considered the proposed increase in floor space from 104sqm to 166sqm was a huge increase. He also expressed concerns that the extension may be visible at some point in the future if trees were felled.

13.   Councillor Lynne Doherty seconded the motion to approve the application as proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole.

14.   The Chairman asked Mr Till what conditions would be needed to support their proposal to approve the application. The conditions were agreed as set out below.

15.   Mrs Armour asked for clarification on the reasons for voting against Officer recommendations. These were agreed as shown below.

16.   Councillor Phil Barnett indicated that he had been in support of the previous application and the only concern he had was the type of trees and leaves and the building not being obscured. He confirmed that he would support the proposal.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty to grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.             Commencement of development:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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.             Approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

MFwhitelodELG (Existing Elevations - Garage), received on 22/02/2021

MFwhitelodELH (Existing Elevations - House), received on 22/02/2021

171022-102 Rev A, (Proposed Plans and Elevations), received on 22/02/2021

MFwhitelodFFH (Existing First floor Plan), received on 22/02/2021

171022-101 (Location and Site Plan), received on 22/02/2021

MFwhitelodgeTOPO (Topographical Survey), received on 22/02/2021

MFwhitelodRPG (Existing Roof Plan), received on 22/02/2021

MFwhitelodRPH (Existing Roof Plan - House), received on 22/02/2021

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3.             Schedule of materials

No above ground development shall commence until a schedule of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Samples of materials shall be made available upon request.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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 CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).  A pre-commencement condition is required because the approved materials will be used throughout construction.

4.             Parking

The extension shall not be first occupied until vehicle parking has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out).  Thereafter the parking shall be kept available for parking of private cars 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.

5.             Electric vehicle charging points

The extension shall not be occupied until an electric vehicle charging point has been provided for the dwelling in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  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.

 

6.             Permitted development 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, B, C and E 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 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), and the Quality Design SPD (June 2006).

7.             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)    Temporary access arrangements to the site, and any temporary hard-standing;

f)      Wheel washing facilities;

g)    Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction;

h)    A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

i)      Hours of construction and demolition work;

j)      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.

8.             Tree protection

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.

9.             Soft landscaping

The extensions shall not be first occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme 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.  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.

10.          .Ancillary use

The building hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as White Lodge, Donnington Grove.

Reason: To limit the future use of the building to prevent uses which would not be ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling.  This condition is applied in the interests of preventing a change of use which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development, and detract from neighbouring and local amenity.  This condition is applied in accordance with Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS1, CS13, CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C1, C3 and C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, WBC Quality Design SPD (2006), and WBC House Extensions SPG (2004).