Agenda item

Proposal:	Two storey extension to the side and single storey extension to the rear.
Location:	1 Croft Road, Newbury.
Applicant:	Martin Redford.
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions.

 

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that it was situated within his ward. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council. As their interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Carolyne Culver declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01038/HOUSE in respect of 1 Croft Road, Newbury Wash Common. Approval was sought for a two storey extension to the side and a single storey extension to the rear.

2.     Mr Masie Masiiwa, Senior Planning Officer, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined 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 stated that Highways were satisfied that the three car parking spaces in front of the property would be maintained.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Mr Graham Coldman and Mr Colin Gillah, objectors, Mr Jonathan Jarman, agent, and Mrs Karen Redford, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application had come before the Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee on 1 June 2021. On that occasion, the Town Council did not comment on the application due to the conflicting information from the applicants and the neighbours, and felt that it should be decided by the Planning Officers, acknowledging the real concerns of neighbours.

·         He had attended the site visit on 7 October 2021. The main concern with the site was the topography. The properties at 37 and 39 Wendan Road were considerably lower than the property at 1 Croft Road.

·         The architect’s model shown at the site visit had been useful in getting an impression of the mono-pitch roof.

·         The view of the Town Council was that the Planning Officers should decide. He noted that Officers had no objections, subject to the implementation of the stated conditions. However, Mr Foot believed that the proposed roof was too high, and should be reduced.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked why the Town Council believed the roof was too high. Mr Foot responded that it was his perception from the site visit that it was too high, and that the light survey had not indicated cause for concern. He was particularly concerned about the view from 39 Wendan Road.

7.     Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Mr Foot had expressed his personal views rather than those of the Town Council in relation to the height of the roof. Councillor Abbs responded that Mr Foot was present to express an opinion on behalf of the Town Council, and that was what he had said.

Objector Representation

8.     Mr Graham Coldman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Coldman had no objection to the owners of 1 Croft Road extending their home to meet their needs. However, he objected to the design of the proposed extension, which he believed did not follow the guidelines set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, and would adversely affect the lives of those in neighbouring properties.

·         The rear extension was over seven metres long and he did not believe that it was not subservient to the main house, and it would unnecessarily endanger a mature tree at 39 Wendan Road.

·         The mono-pitched roof was effectively a first floor extension, and was 4.8 metres tall with an effective height of 6m relative to his living room. It would project above the fence and would be overbearing on neighbouring properties.

·         Proposed west-facing windows were far less than the 21 metres distance from neighbouring rear-facing windows, and may be over the fence line.

·         He felt that amending the design to meet the SPG would not greatly hinder the provision of improved access on the ground floor as sought by the applicant.

9.     Mr Colin Gillah in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and had  been practising in the area for over 25 years.

·         The owners of 3 Croft Road were the closest neighbours, and would be most greatly affected by the development. He called on the Committee to refuse the application.

·         The extension was over seven metres long, and was described as single-storey, but the design included a five metre long continuous glazing at first-floor level, facing 3 Croft Road. The extension height rose to 4.8m and the flat roof section was 2.8m high and just over 1m from the boundary fence with windows projecting above the fence. In the space between the extension and the boundary, a new window was proposed in the rear wall of the house, which would also be higher than the fence.  The glazing would reduce privacy and add to light pollution, impacting on the residential amenity of the neighbours, as evidenced at the site meeting.

·         The Supplementary Planning Guidance on house extensions appeared to have been ignored, specifically in relation to the effect on neighbouring properties and the lack of sunlight and daylight. A single storey extension should not project beyond a line drawn 60^o from the middle of the neighbour’s nearest ground floor window, but this extended to 70^o. Due to the glazing at first floor level, the extension should be considered as two-storey, which would limit its projection to 45^o, but the proposal extended to 48^o. This meant that if failed to satisfy the requirements of the SPG on both ground and first floor levels.

·         The applicant relied on a specialist’s report, which argues there will be no significant loss of sunlight, but this report stated that there would be an 18% loss of sunlight, 20% in the winter. He considered this to be a significant figure, making the living room of the neighbouring property darker.

·         The proposal to extend the fencing represented an increase of 20 inches, which would affect the residential amenity of the neighbouring property.

·         He also had other reservations about the design of the proposal and its dominating nature, and expressed concern about incorrect dimensions.

·         He urged Members to refuse the application.

Member Questions to the Objectors

10.  Councillor Abbs noted Mr Gillah’s concerns about the height of the proposed extension and asked whether he would reach the same conclusion if there was a flat roof. Mr Gillah responded that the projection of the building, the proximity of the boundary and the height of the windows would still be very close to his client’s property and would be dominating.

Applicant and Agent Representation

11.  Mrs Karen Redford, applicant, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Redford explained that she had suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for 25 years and had undergone joint replacement surgery and had periods of wheelchair use.

·         When her family had moved into the house 6 years ago, they had noted that a number of extensions had been built on properties in the area, including the immediate neighbour. They had believed that if they needed an extension, it would be relatively simple since a precedent existed for a single-storey extension next-door.

·         She was now suffering with heart failure and needed to reorganise the ground floor of the property and create an accessible bathroom, since she found it extremely difficult to get upstairs to use the first floor bathroom.

·         She did not feel that they were asking for anything extraordinary or that had not already been done. She was simply seeking extra space to accommodate her current needs and improve her quality of life, as well as future–proofing the property to meet her anticipated health needs.

12.  Mr Jonathan Jarman, agent, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed extension was a necessary improvement and was needed to secure Mrs Redford’s health, safety and comfort.

·         No objection had been made to the principle of development and officers recommended approval.

·         Concerns had been raised in respect of design and amenity impacts.

·         The design of the proposed side-extension was similar to that of the adjoining house, it was in keeping with the local form, and benefitted the pair of semi-detached houses.

·         The proposed rear extension was less conventional due to its proposed roof form, but that was not the same as harm. It would project 7m from the back of the house and 6m from the rear of the kitchen. It would only be 1.7 metres beyond the neighbouring extension. It was stepped in from the shared boundary and at its closest point measured 2.8m in height,   As such, it was only partially visible above the fence line and not to the extent that it would be harmful.

·         Concern had been raised about light-spill and overlooking from the side element of the roof towards 3 Croft Road, but the windows were above head height and could not reasonably be considered to have an impact.

·         Windows on the side elevation facing properties on Wendan Road were also stepped in from the boundary and the height of the windows would be 1.7m, so would be below the fence line. There was also separation between the property and 39 Wendan Road via the 10m garden.

·         A professional report into impacts on daylight and sunlight amenity had been commissioned and concluded that there would be sufficient safeguarding of daylight and sunlight for neighbouring properties.

·         In conclusion, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area and would not have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Therefore, he urged the Committee to accept Officers’ recommendation.

Member Questions to the Applicant and Agent

13.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked why the application had been made with such a high roof. He believed that the side extension itself would not raise objections and noted that it mirrored that of the neighbouring extension. He also felt that the rear extension was similar to others in the local area, but the height of the mono-pitch roof concerned him. Mrs Redford responded that the designer had been tasked with proposing something that was aesthetically beautiful, and that sunlight was needed in the extension, which would be difficult without the mono-pitch roof due to proximity of other windows to the boundary fence.

14.  Councillor Abbs asked if the numbers in the light report were based on the present application. Mr Jarman responded that they were.

Ward Member Representation

15.  Councillor David Marsh in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Marsh was supportive of the application.

·         He had visited nearby properties and listened to the concerns of neighbours, but, taking everything into account, believed that the application had adequately addressed the concerns raised.

·         He believed the design to be attractive, as well as addressing the long-term needs of the Redford family.

·         The proposal would lead to an improvement to the front aspect of the property, matching the extension of No. 3, while still retaining the required parking.

·         The rear extension was a subjective matter. Objectors did not like the design, but Councillor Marsh did like it and considered it an improvement on the existing garage. Windows that currently overlooked adjacent properties would be lost as part of the development. He did not consider it intrusive.

·         In terms of loss of sunlight and daylight, there would be a minimal effect on neighbouring properties.

·         Most of the features of the proposal had been designed to meet the needs of Mrs Redford and her family, including wheelchair access and an upgraded ceiling structure to enable a hoist to be installed.

·         Councillor Marsh believed that the Council should be proud to support such an imaginative design that would transform the lives of the Redford family, without having a significant adverse impact on amenity for adjacent properties.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

16.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

17.  Councillor Jeff Cant agreed that the principle of the extension was fine, but the roof was unusual in design and a matter of taste. He asked if there was any specific Planning grounds to refuse planning permission based on the design of the roof. Mr Masie Masiiwa responded that the design was contemporary, but not unusual, and that it was functional in terms of allowing light into the space. The mono-pitch roof was considered better than an expansive flat roof extension. The maximum height of the roof would be 4.2m and the roof sloped away from the boundary with the properties on Wendan Road, so Planning did not consider there to be a significant adverse impact on the neighbouring properties that would warrant refusal of planning permission.

18.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked whether the foundations of the proposed extension would impact on the neighbouring fencing. Mr Simon Till responded that this was not a material planning consideration and was a matter that was covered by Party Wall Act and Building Regulations and so was outside of the remit of Planning.

19.  Councillor Andy Moore asked if the fence to the west was part of the planning application, and if so was the fence height covered in the conditions. Mr Masie Masiiwa responded that it was not part of the application, although there was a proposal to partly replace the fence to the east, and the applicant had proposed a new fence on their side of the boundary. Councillor Moore asked if maintenance of the fence between the property and neighbouring properties on Wendan Road could be the subject of a condition. Mr Masiiwa confirmed that there would be no issue with overlooking so long as the fence was maintained and there was no reason to believe that the fence would be removed. Mr Simon Till responded that the owner of the neighbouring properties would have every right to maintain the boundary of their property.

Debate

20.  Councillor Abbs opened the debate by stating that the Committee fully sympathised with Mrs Redford’s position, but he was also mindful that there were concerns expressed by neighbours. He noted that one reason for the height of the roof was to let light into the extension, but suggested that there were other ways to achieve this, without introducing challenges for neighbours. He indicated that the style of the proposal was not in keeping with the area and there were other flat-roofed extensions in the area. He suggested that it was challenging to accept the application.

21.  Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the design of the application could not be changed ‘on the fly’. She stated that the Committee was being asked to arbitrate in a neighbour dispute, and that this could have been determined by officers. She liked the design, but acknowledged that this was subjective. From the front, she felt that the side extension would balance the properties. She considered that the issue of fencing was not relevant and owners could plant trees and shrubs that would grow higher than 2m.

22.  Councillor Clive Hooker had no issue with the side extension. He acknowledged that the wall would be on the property boundary, but that was not a planning matter. He had some sympathy with the concerns of neighbours at No. 3 Croft Road regarding the roof and glazing. He also sympathised with the neighbour at No. 39 Wendan Road, which was much lower, and the roof of the proposed extension would cover most of their garden. He believed that it was an unnecessary elevation, and that it would cause harm to the neighbouring properties. He considered that options such as roof lanterns or setting the wall back from the boundary would help to address concerns. He felt that it would cause harm to neighbours at N0. 29 Wendan Road.

23.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the second site meeting had allowed consideration of the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties, which put a different complexion on the application. Councillor Barnett believed that the neighbouring properties on Wendan Road would be affected by the closeness of the boundary and the sunlight impact. He did not consider there would be significant sunlight impacts on No. 3 Croft Road, but there would still be a visual impact. However, he also noted that there was a necessity for the application with clear benefits for the residents. He indicated that his vote was very much in the balance.

24.  The Chairman appreciated that it was a subjective issue. He acknowledged the impact on neighbouring properties, but felt that the slope of the roof would reduce this. 

25.  Councillor Howard Woollaston did not believe this was the right place for modern architecture, and felt that the design had been proposed on a whim. He appreciated the applicant’s medical issues and had no problem with the proposed footprint of the extensions, but he considered the roof to be unacceptable.

26.  Councillor Jeff Cant reiterated the point made by Mr Masiiwa, that officers saw no valid planning grounds to reject the application on design grounds. Councillor Cant asked that if the application was refused, valid planning reasons needed to be given.

27.  Mr Till clarified that officers had given a view that the development would meet the requirements of the SPG and Policy CS14 in terms of quality design. If the Committee took an alternative view from the officers on this matter, design could be a material planning consideration for doing so.

28.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director - Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.    Commencement of development

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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 approved plans and documents listed below:

Drawing numbers: 12; 13; 16; 18 received 14^th April 2021

Amended Drawing numbers: 2A; 11; 14; 15; 17; received 30^th July 2021

Plan with Fence Details received 14^th April 2021

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

3.    Materials

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and the application form. Where stated that materials shall match the existing, those materials shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture.

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, Policy 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).

4.    No further openings on western elevation

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, reenacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no windows or dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and C of that Order shall be constructed above ground floor level on the western elevation of the extension hereby permitted, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of the neighbouring dwellings on Wendan Road, in the interests of safeguarding the privacy of the occupants. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (2006) and House Extensions SPG (July 2004).

5.    Use of flat roof

The flat roof area of the rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

Reason: To prevent the overlooking of the neighbouring property at 3 Croft Road, in the interests of safeguarding the privacy of the occupants. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (2006) and House Extensions SPG (July 2004).

6.    Hours of work

No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential dwellings. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Informatives

1.     This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.     -     To ensure that the trees, which are to be retained, are protected from damage, ensure that all works occur in a direction away from the trees.

-       In addition that no materials are stored within close proximity i.e. underneath the canopy of trees to be retained.

-       Ensure that all mixing of materials that could be harmful to tree roots is done well away from trees (outside the canopy drip line) and downhill of the trees if on a slope, to avoid contamination of the soil.

-       To ensure the above, erect chestnut pale fencing on a scaffold framework at least out to the canopy extent to preserve rooting areas from compaction, chemicals or other unnatural substances washing into the soil.

-       If this is not possible due to working room / access requirements The ground under the trees’ canopies on the side of construction / access should be covered by 7.5cm of woodchip or a compressible material such as sharp sand, and covered with plywood sheets / scaffold boards to prevent compaction of the soil and roots. This could be underlain by a non permeable membrane to prevent lime based products / chemicals entering the soil.

-       If there are any existing roots in situ and the excavation is not to be immediately filled in, then they should be covered by loose soil or dry Hessian sacking to prevent desiccation or frost damage. If required, the minimum amount of root could be cut back to using a sharp knife.

-       If lime based products are to be used for strip foundations then any roots found should be protected by a non permeable membrane prior to the laying of concrete.

3.     You are reminded of your duties under the Party Wall Act 1996. You are legally required to tell your neighbour if you want to: (1) build on or at the boundary of your two properties, (2) work on an existing party wall or party structure, or (3) dig below and near to the foundation level of their property. Your neighbours can’t stop you from making changes to your property that are within the law, but they can affect how and when your works are carried out. Procedures under this Act are separate from the need for planning permission and for building regulations approval. Further guidance is available at: https://www.gov.uk/party-walls-building-works/work-tellyour-neighbour-about