Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00719/HOUSE in respect of a rear orangery.

Miss Donna Toms (Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Jessica Raphael, objector, and Mr Gordon Bradley and Mr Brian Davies, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

Ms Raphael in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She confirmed that she was the owner / occupier of 48 Abbey Gardens.

·         She also spoke for Mr David Mayer, the owner / occupier of 50 Abbey Gardens and Mr Nicolas Lyon, the owner / occupier of 47 Abbey Gardens.

·         A solid brick wall, twice the height of the existing fence would cause an extra 50% loss of light and overshadowing, with substantial harm due to reduced light entering her living room.

·         A professional light survey should be commissioned.

·         It was proposed that the rear boundary height would be reduced by at least two feet at the next hedge cutting. The parasol, which was removed prior to the site visit, was situated where the extension would be built and was clearly visible from the bridleway, meadow, recreation ground and highway at the side, as would the proposed orangery.

·         The report mentioned three existing rear extensions, but objectors were only aware of one at number 45, and the planning consent for that was based on no there being no dwelling to the north, so there would be no issue with loss of light and foreshadowing. Also, number 45 was set back from its neighbour. She asked why the same criteria did not apply to this application.

·         It was not clear how a development of twice the existing fence height could be considered ‘minimal’ and how light would only be reduced for ‘a short period of the day’. It was suggested that light would be reduced all morning.

·         It was not clear how this extension made a positive contribution to its immediate neighbours and the rest of West Berkshire – the only party that would benefit would be the applicant.

·         The relevance of the 45 degree rule had been dismissed by the case officer and clarification was sought that this was correct.

·         The management company had stated that they were neutral. However, Mr Steve Bailey was a director of the management company and spoke for himself. It was asked if he had a personal interest, since his extension was the basis for this proposal.

·         Ms Raphael felt that this application should be rejected.

·         Mr David Mayer had provided additional points as follows:

o   The proposed orangery would be an overly dominant structure, with the brick front and side elevation of 3.7m rather than 3.57m as stated.

o   The narrow gap between the side elevation and the property boundary would prevent future maintenance.

o   Concerns were expressed about the impact of excavations for the foundations, which would be at least three times the wall width.

Member Questions to the Objector

Members asked for details about the three similar extensions on nearby properties mentioned in paragraph 6.13 of the report. Ms Raphael was familiar with the extension at number 45, but was not aware of the others. She indicated that two similar proposals had previously been rejected and she did not feel that there was a precedent for this type of development.

Members who had visited the site confirmed that similar extensions were present at numbers 43 and 45, while number 50 had a traditional conservatory. Ms Raphael disputed that number 50 had a traditional conservatory.

A question was asked about when neighbouring properties would be affected by loss of light.  Ms Raphael confirmed that she had sunlight in her rear garden throughout the morning, which helped to heat the rear of the property. From her own measurements, the proposed structure would overshadow three quarters of her patio and the rear of her house.

Applicant Representation

Mr Bradley in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Numbers 40, 43 and 45 all had similar extensions.

·         He thanked the committee for visiting the site and indicated that he would accept additional conditions to address any concerns.

·         The residents association had been approached and had given unanimous support for the design. Three alternative designs had been prepared and the preferred design would cost around £20,000 more than the alternatives.

·         The proposal would add value to the building.

·         The bursar of the monastery had been approached – he had indicated that he would not oppose the application.

·         The proposed orangery would not be overly dominant.

·         The owner of number 50 had applied previously for a conservatory that was considerably larger than this one and had been upset when it had been rejected.

·         Mr Bradley’s wife had recently had a hip operation and wanted to be able to access the garden more easily than the current layout permitted.

·         One of the objectors had queried why an orangery was proposed. The applicant confirmed that he would be growing oranges and lemons.

Mr Davies in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The property’s lease made provision for appropriate and sympathetic extensions provided due process was followed. The landlord and residents committee had been consulted and the applicant had engaged a professional architect and had consulted a reputable conservatory manufacturer.

·         Numbers 48, 49 and 50 had substantial front and rear gardens, so loss of light would have a minimal impact, since the sun would be on the front gardens in the afternoons.

·         The application was considered appropriate, modest, and in keeping and should be supported.

Member Questions to the Applicants

Members asked about the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of light as a result of the 3.7m wall versus the existing 1.8m fence. A further question was asked about the depth of the wall that would face the neighbouring property. Mr Bradley was unable to give the exact dimension, but indicated that a gap would be left between the orangery and the fence. The height would be around 2-3 bricks below the rear window. His parasol was currently higher than the fence, but the sun was sufficiently high in summer as to flood both gardens. Ms Raphael would be able to use her front garden in the afternoon. The applicant’s main concern was to get his wife back in the garden. Mr Davies suggested that there would be no loss of light, but there would be a loss of sunlight for a very short period of time. The architects had designed the orangery to meet all planning requirements, and it had been assessed by the Council’s planning officers to ensure that it was compliant. He reiterated that all three properties (48, 49 and 50) enjoyed sunlight in their front gardens in the afternoon.

Ward Member Representation

The Chairman in addressing the committee made the following points:

·         He had not been ward member when this pleasant development had been built to fund the redevelopment of the old school.

·         It had been designed with care and focused on the features of the old building, with castellation, stone courses and casement windows and the plans for the proposed orangery reflected these design elements.

·         The top of the glass roof would be just under the upper floor window and the top of the brickwork would be around two bricks lower.

·         Members had heard comments about potential loss of light and sunlight, but there would be no overlooking.

·         The proposed orangery would fill the patio area.

·         The property projected two bricks outwards from its neighbours.

·         He could understand why the applicant wanted to build the orangery and why the neighbour might consider it overpowering, since it would feature a brick wall not quite twice the height of the fence.

·         The front gardens were private and set back from a quiet section of road.

Questions to the Ward Member

Members noted that the rear gardens of numbers 48 and 50 were very narrow and asked if the proposed orangery could be considered overpowering. The Chairman agreed that the gardens were not very wide. He noted that there were two gardens for each property – the rear gardens got sunlight in the morning and front gardens got sunlight in the afternoons. He suggested that it would be a judgement call whether the development could be considered overpowering.

Clarification was sought as to whether number 49 was set back or forward from its neighbours. The Chairman confirmed that the rear wall protruded by two bricks from the rear walls of its neighbours.

Continuation of meeting

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution section 7.13.5, the Committee supported Councillor Bridgman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3).

Questions to Officers

Members asked about the planning implications of the limited overshadowing of neighbouring properties mentioned in the report. Also, clarification was sought as to what was meant by three similar extensions being in largely obscured areas of the estate. It was confirmed that Members needed to test the development against the policy that said development shall respect the character and appearance of the area. Existing single storey extensions in the area would affect the existing character and appearance and it would be up to Members to come to a decision on that issue. Neighbouring amenity had been assessed in terms of loss of light and the potential for overlooking. The main concern was loss of sunlight – daylight was more diffuse and therefore less of a concern. Officers’ judgement was that the loss of sunlight would not be significant. The neighbouring property had multiple windows and ordinarily a development of comparable size would be permitted development. Assessment of whether the proposal would be overbearing was more subjective, but took account of any sense of enclosure or dominance of the brick wall. Given the dimensions of the proposal and the existing fence, officers did not feel that the proposal would be overbearing.

Clarification was sought as to which houses already had extensions.  It was confirmed that houses 40, 43 and 45 all had extensions.

Debate

Councillor Alan Law recalled the site visit to assess a previous application for an extension on this development, which had initially been refused. There were just two others in the vicinity. While he conceded that the current proposal was well-designed, he did not feel that it was subservient to the property or in character with the area.

Councillor Tony Linden agreed with Councillor Law. He noted that the rear gardens were narrow and was concerned that the side-walls of the proposed orangery would be overbearing for neighbouring properties.

Councillor Richard Somner disagreed and indicated that each neighbour would only be affected by a single wall, so would not be boxed in. He noted that Google Earth showed all three rear gardens in shade, but highlighted that the front gardens were very private and would be usable. He questioned the subservience issue given that the middle property was already longer than its neighbours. Also, there would be a gap between the fence and the exterior wall. He noted that his neighbour was faced by a similar wall on an adjacent property and this was inevitable with any extension.

Councillor Keith Woodhams asked if officers felt the proposed extension was subservient. Officers confirmed that this was a subjective decision, but key factors were height, width and dimensions relative to its surroundings or the existing building.

Councillor Geoff Mayes did not feel that it was subservient to the existing building, which projected outwards by around 450mm from its neighbours. The parasol had been up when he had visited the site and was visible from the rear gate. He did not see any downpipes on the rear wall, so he did not feel that drainage would be an issue. He noted that the extension could not be full-width to allow for the foundations. He considered that the property to the north would be in shadow, but suggested that light tracking projections should be carried out for different times of year to demonstrate the impact of the proposal.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the property faced east-north-east, so number 50 should not have an issue with shadowing, but number 48 would have an issue to some extent. He noted that the reports stated that the extension had been designed to be subservient to the original property and agreed with this assessment. He felt that the main issues were overshadowing and the effect of the brick wall, but noted that if the wall had windows, there would be issues with overlooking. He proposed to accept officers’ recommendation and approve the application. This was seconded by Councillor Keith Woodhams.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Alan Macro and seconded by Councillor Richard Somner to accept officers’ recommendation to approve the application. At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director of Planning and Regulation be authorised to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below.

Conditions

Informatives