Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. They had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 21/03132/HOUSE in respect of Partial Retrospective: Retention of existing metal staircase to side gable end wall and addition of proposed privacy screen.

2.     Mr Scott Houston, 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.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council,  Ms Karen Munroe, objector, and Ms Amanda Olley, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.     Mr Foot in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         This application had come before Newbury Town Council on two  occasions.

·         At the meeting of 24 January 2022, the Planning and Highway Committee’s recommendation was to object due to overbearing of neighbours causing privacy concerns, and noise from the metal staircase.

·         At the meeting of 7 March 2022, the Committee’s recommendation was to strongly object for the same reasons as before. They went on to ask that the Local Planning Authority take enforcement action in this matter, since it was a retrospective application that had given neighbours no chance to object before it was built.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.     Ms Munroe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived at 38 Cresswell Road directly opposite the gable end shown in the photographs.

·         Members who attended the site visit could see that 80% of her property was overlooked by the staircase and door, including her bedroom and living room.

·         She had been unable to use her garden and for the last 18 months, she had had to keep her curtains and blinds shut for fear of overlooking.

·         The photographs showed that the staircase was an eyesore and the proposed privacy screen would be overbearing for her and her neighbour.

·         Three other properties were also affected, since the garden was on a corner of Cresswell Road.

·         This was a retrospective application and it was questioned whether the changes had been inspected by Building Control.

·         Ms Munroe had undertaken changes at her own home, which had required planning permission and inspections by Building Control.

·         The staircase had affected her wellbeing and day-to-day life for the last 18 months, and she was saddened that she was having to again seek the Committee’s support to have it removed.

·         She appreciated that it was not a great area, but it did not mean that residents did not care about their properties, and she suggested that Members would feel the same if they had a similar view from their properties.

·         She was also concerned about noise.

·         She felt that it made a mockery of the planning process to submit a retrospective application for a change that had already been made.

Member Questions to the Objector

7.     Members asked for further details about noise issues. It was noted that the staircase was metal, so sound would travel when people went up and down. There was also a doorbell fitted, which suggested that there would be a lot of use of this entrance. Wiring had also been installed for a security light that would shine onto neighbouring properties. The owner had continued to do work and had used the access even though it had not been approved.

Agent Representation

8.     Ms Amanda Olley from Summit Planning Limited in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The officer’s report brought to a head some 18 months of submissions in relation to this matter.

·         The development had been the subject of an initial application that had been refused planning permission under delegated powers. This was appealed and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of overlooking of neighbouring properties. This was on the basis of retaining the staircase in its current form.

·         The appeal inspector’s judgement was clear that no reasonable grounds of refusal could be sustained regarding the visual appearance of the staircase.

·         Regarding the concern about overlooking, the inspector had opened a door to a solution, which was the subject of the current application.

·         It was proposed to introduce a privacy screen at a height of 1.8m, which would be more than the eye height of an average person. The screen would be obscurely glazed to remove any potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties.

·         The screen would also help to neutralise the impact of comings and goings at the property as viewed from outside the site.

·         The positive impact of the privacy screen had been reflected in the representations made in relation to the application. There was a balance between those nearby neighbours who wished to maintain an objection and those who had recognised the efforts of the applicant to address the single area of concern.

·         A nearby neighbour who had a direct view of the stairs had confirmed no ongoing objection. 

·         As advised in the officer’s report, the addition of the privacy screen resulted in highly limited views from all angles.

·         The proposal was felt to strike an appropriate balance between the extent of the privacy screen and its visual appearance. However, at the site visit, Members suggested that the proposed height might not be sufficient. The applicant was amenable to increasing the height of the screen if Members felt this to be necessary to reduce the perceived impact on neighbours.

·         Having been through the appeal process and having received a clear judgment and direction by the inspector, the applicant was keen that the matter should not end up at appeal again in order to avoid any associated appeal for costs.

·         The proposed privacy screen had appropriately addressed the single concern highlighted by the inspector and presented an acceptable way forward that was hoped would draw the matter to a close.

·         She encouraged Members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Member Questions to the Agent

9.     Members noted that the agent had not mentioned noise and asked if she considered this would be an issue. Ms Olley confirmed that the staircase was not finished and that noise was not anticipated to be an issue.

10.  Members asked why the external staircase was necessary. Ms Olley confirmed that the applicant wished to bring his mother-in-law to live at the property and to create an internal annexe with an independent means of access. Members asked if this would create two flats. Ms Olley confirmed that it would not.

11.  It was noted that other parties might consider noise to be an issue, and the agent was asked if the applicant would be prepared to consider rubber matting on the stairs. Ms Olley indicated that the applicant was open to solutions to mitigate against any perceived impacts.

12.  In relation to the proposed barrier, it was noted that this would have Level 3 obscure glass, which people could just about see through. The agent was asked if a higher level of obscurity would be acceptable. Ms Olley did not consider this to be justified, but confirmed that it could be considered if Members felt it was necessary.

Member Questions to Officers

13.  Members noted that the distance from the staircase to Ms Munroe’s bedroom was less than 21m and asked if the proposed screen would be sufficient to address the issue of overlooking.  It was confirmed that officers had made a discretionary judgement. The 21m distance was taken to apply to facing windows. In this case, the level of obscurity proposed was felt to provide effective mitigation.

14.  Members asked for details of what the screening would look like. It was confirmed that there would be black trellis below the glass screen. The possibility of a condition requiring vegetation to be planted to screen the trellis had been discussed, but was considered to be an onerous imposition.

15.  The colour of the trellis was queried, since the black finish was felt to be overbearing. It was confirmed that this colour had been chosen to match the existing staircase, but Members could ask for an alternative colour.

16.  Members asked about the appeal decision. Officers indicated that in determining the acceptability of the staircase, the inspector felt that it had an unacceptable impact on neighbours’ privacy and amenity. There was a refusal reason related to the impact on the character and appearance of the area, but the inspector, mindful of the limited views from the public domain, did not uphold this as a reason for refusal. In terms of the current application, Members would need to be satisfied that the privacy screen would have a significantly higher impact on visual amenity than the existing staircase, and that there was sufficient justification in terms of visual impact on public as well as private views in order to cite impact on character and appearance as a reason for refusal. It was acknowledged that the appeal decision set a difficult position in terms of removal of the staircase. If the application for the screen were to be refused then it would be open to the applicant to seek an alternative or to appeal the refusal. There would also be the potential for costs if the inspector considered that the matters had been substantially addressed from the previous appeal. However, the Committee could seek to impose conditions relating to the height of the screen, alternative trellis treatment, provision of rubber treads on the stairs and lighting. The applicant had already confirmed that he would be willing to consider an increase in the height of the screen if Members considered this necessary.

Continuation of meeting

17.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution point 7.13.5, the Committee agreed that the remaining business could not be concluded by 10.30pm, and so the meeting would have to be concluded by 10pm.

Debate

18.  Councillor Jeff Cant opened the debate. He felt that it was covert redevelopment into two flats and that the proposal was intrusive on neighbours, so he was inclined to vote against it.

19.  Councillor Tony Vickers observed that noise issues were not covered by the appeal, and this should be covered by a suitable condition. He did not consider it necessary to increase the obscurity of the screen, but increasing the height to 2m would ensure there was no loss of privacy for neighbours. He indicated that he would be minded to support the application if these changes could be secured by conditions.

20.  Councillor Adrian Abbs felt that the black colour scheme increased the visual impact and the Inspector’s comments had been based on a staircase rather than a black monolithic block. He indicated that he was opposed to the proposal in its current form.

21.  Councillor Phil Barnett expressed concerns about distance, intrusion and noise affecting neighbours. He considered that the development was out of character with the surrounding area. He indicated that he was minded to oppose the application.

22.  Councillor James Cole thought that if the application was refused, then it would go to appeal. He noted that the staircase was already in place and had been to appeal once. He suggested that it should be approved, but with stringent conditions.

23.  He felt that the black colour should be changed and broken up, the height of the screen should be increased, and the opacity of the screen increased to Level 4. He also proposed that there should be rubber matting on the stair treads to address the noise issue. Also, any outside lighting should be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and should be restricted.

24.  Councillor Cole proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report and with additional conditions to: increase the height of the screen to 2m; increase the opacity of the screen to Level 4; provide rubber matting on the stair treads to minimise noise; and to require the applicant to submit plans for approval for any associated lighting. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers.

25.  Councillor Lynne Doherty indicated that she was opposed to the proposal, since it was a retrospective application that was being forced through. She felt sorry for the affected neighbours and suggested that this should not be how planning was done.

26.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor James Cole, seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was rejected.

27.  Councillor Lynne Doherty proposed to reject officer’s recommendation on the basis that that the inspector’s reservations about intrusiveness and detrimental impact on appearance had not been resolved, as well as Members’ concerns about increased visual impact, noise and the impact of associated lighting. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant.

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

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

·         The proposed works are partially retrospective for the retention of an existing external stair that was erected without planning permission. An appeal, reference APP/W0340/D/21/3276930, against the refusal of planning application 21/00445/HOUSE was dismissed due to concerns with the impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity due to overlooking generated by the unauthorised stair. Following this appeal decision the proposed works are reliant on a privacy screen and trellis to be added to the existing stair in order to mitigate overlooking,  loss of privacy and the perception of loss of privacy resulting from the location and use of the stair. The proposed works would result in the imposition of additional development in the form of the privacy screen and trellis that would be observed from the rear windows and rear amenity spaces of several neighbouring properties and visually imposing with a conspicuous and overbearing appearance when viewed from the rear windows and amenity areas of those surrounding properties, as well as from the public domain in glimpsed views between numbers 40 and 42 Cresswell Road to the north east of the application site where the existing stair can already be seen. Furthermore the proposed works, by virtue of the combined monolithic appearance of the stair, trellis and privacy screen, would be of a poor quality of design and result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. The proposed works would therefore fail to meet with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 for development to demonstrate a high quality and sustainable design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the proposed works would result in disruption to neighbouring amenity due to noise of an intrusive nature arising from the use of the stair for day to day comings and goings and the use of any associated lighting. The proposed works would therefore fail to provide for a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings adjacent to the site or to make a positive contribution to the quality of life in West Berkshire, contrary to the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.