Agenda item

Proposal:	Retrospective: application for alterations to approved scheme 12/00538/HOUSE; first floor extension to single storey house, single storey extension to the west and new garage to replace existing.
Location:	Juniper Rise, Ashmore Green, Thatcham, RG18 9EY
Applicant:	Mr D Pirlo
Recommendation:	Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

 

                Item starts at 2 hours, 22 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/00246/HOUSE in respect of a retrospective application for alterations to approved scheme 12/00538/HOUSE; first floor extension to single storey house, single storey extension to the west and new garage to replace existing.

2.     Ms Donna Toms 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 Director of 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 Gareth Dowding if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Dowding responded that he had none to make at this time.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Heather Codling, Parish Council representative, Mr Ivan Simonowski and Mr Ian Goodwin, objectors, Zelina Francis, supporter, Duncan Mathewson, agent, and Councillor Heather Codling as Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Councillor Codling (Cold Ash Parish Council) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Codling was not a Councillor of the Parish Council at the time the application was considered and would therefore read out comments on behalf of the Parish Council.

·         The proposal was out of keeping with neighbouring properties and was overbearing. 

·         There was concern of the garage being used as a separate dwelling.

·         There was concern about the retrospective nature of the application as it did not comply with previous plans that had been approved by the Local Authority.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.     Mr Ivan Simonowski in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The changes to the original application were significant and substantial. It was at least one metre or 13 courses of bricks higher than that agreed.

·         It overwhelmed the view from the road and adjacent properties.

·         The building was now the only three storey house on Ashmore Green Road, which set a precedent going forward.

·         The changes should have been thought through at the original planning stage. It was felt that the retrospective route had always been the intention. There had been a total disregard to the planning process. Objection had not been raised to the original plans however, this had completely changed. No respect had been shown for those in neighbouring properties. 

·         Mr Simonwski reported that he had changed his bungalow to a house and had adhered to the planning permission granted.

8.     Mr Ian Goodwin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was representing the other residents on Ashmore Green Road who had raised objections and who felt cheated because they had not objected to the original plans. It was felt that what had been built had no relationship to what was originally agreed.

·         Information provided on the website was minimal and this made it difficult to compare the original application to the current one.

·         Residents had described the development as an ‘in your face’ development.

·         There were other houses close by that would soon likely be enlarged. Mr Goodwin queried what would stop these residents from taking the same approach, which was above and beyond what had been permitted. 

Member Questions to the Objector

9.     Members asked questions of the Objector and were given the following responses:

·         The roof height was the primary change to the original application. There was a roof with window lights and the position of windows had changed. The ridge height and how it was positioned in relation to the property, Little West, had changed and was now overbearing. The porch to the front and back of the property had changed and bared no relationship to the original plans.  Neighbours had been happy with the original plans, they felt cheated and were worried a precedent would be set.

·         The houses on the street had originally all been bungalows. The houses onwards from Little West down the hill had all been converted in the same manner and were in keeping with each other. Ashmore Green as an area had a mix of building types.

·         The main difference with the property in question was that it was three storey rather than two storey and this created a big jump visually, in relation to other properties. Opposite the application site were old terraced houses. No one had objected to the application consisting of a modern house but rather to the fact that it seemed so big. 

·         It was believed that the change in ridge height was one metre rather than 32cm. This was how it appeared on retrospective plans that showed the agreed height compared to the actual height. 

Supporter Representation

10.  Ms Zelina Francis in addressing the Committee raised the following points (It was requested that slides from the Planning Officer’s presentation be displayed showing the bungalow before it was changed to double storey along with the slide showing the development compared to the two adjacent properties): 

·         Ms Francis had lived in the bungalow to the left of Juniper Rise for seven years.  She no longer lived there but travelled past the area on a daily basis.

·         Ms Francis had known the owner of Juniper Rise for many years and had only ever known him to be an honest and suitable neighbour.

·         Ms Francis attended the parish council session on the 14^th March 2023 and had been surprised to hear of the objections presented about the development being overbearing. Street views showed the property was similar to those around it and there was no obvious obstruction in the flow between the houses. The appearance was similar to other properties close by.

·         The third storey of Juniper Rise could only be noticed from the inside of the house due to it being within the loft area.

·         Ms Francis had been disappointed to hear personalised attacks on the applicant at the parish council meeting on 14^th March.

·         Juniper Rise had been overpowered by its neighbour for the seven years that Ms Francis had lived there. It was felt that a distortion of reality was being portrayed.

·         Ms Francis expected any errors made by the applicant were innocent rather than deliberately misleading.

11.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that only planning matters could be considered. 

Member Questions to the Supporter

12.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

Mr Des Tidbury reported that he had been asked to speak on behalf of the applicant’s architect, Mr Duncan Mathewson, who had been taken ill prior to the meeting. Mr Mathewson had been provided with a written submission, which Mr Tidbury would read out.

It was noted that normally anyone wishing to speak at Committee had to inform the Planning Department by 4pm the day prior to the meeting. Members were of the view that given the circumstances Mr Tidbury should be permitted to speak on Mr Mathewson’s behalf however, Members would refrain from asking any questions once the submission had been read out.

The Chairman proposed that standing orders be suspended to enable Mr Tidbury to speak at the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston and at the vote the motion was carried. 

13.  Mr Tidbury in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Mathewson had been appointed as the architect following notification from West Berkshire Council that an Enforcement Officer would be visiting the site, in view of complaints. Mr Mathewson had met with the Enforcement Officer on 20^th December 2022 to review the difference between the approved scheme and that built.

·         The principle noticeable difference when compared with Little West, apart from the change of porch design, was the addition of three brick courses above the first-floor windows.

·         The differences had been noted and it had been agreed that the client should request a firm of surveyors to carry out a full measured survey.

·         Juniper Rise was originally a bungalow with bungalows on either side. Consent was granted in the early 2000s to extend Little West with the addition of a first floor. It was felt that this set a precedent and the resident of Juniper Rise had applied to extend his property with the addition of residential accommodation in the roof void. The consent remained extant with the construction of a garage also part of the approval.

·         Work on Juniper Rise commenced in 2022 and the same brick work and patterning had been adopted to match the adjoining property. The additional brick course at first floor level to accommodate deeper floor joists together with three brick courses above the top window was the only difference. The latter had been requested by engineers due to loading. 

·         The principal difference in ridge height was due to the difference in existing floor levels due to ground levels. The drawings provided by the original draughtsman in 2012 had the elevations incorrectly drawn by just under a metre with respect of the ridge height. The drawing providing a comparison of the west elevation with Little West, showed a difference in level of 1.05 metres and correctly portrayed the relationship between the two properties.  

·         The applicant had taken the adjoining property as a blueprint and only introduced three brick courses because it had been structurally required to do so. The difference in height between Juniper Rise and Little West was only 320mm.

·         Juniper Rise sat to the north of Little West and consequently there could be no overshadowing caused.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

14.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Councillor Woollaston proposed that standing orders be reinstated and this was seconded by Councillor Benneyworth. At the vote the motion was carried.

Ward Member Representation

15.  Councillor Codling in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Codling had been approached by the residents of Little West and Old Oak, which was a bungalow to the other side of the Juniper West. Little West had been developed from a bungalow into a house some years ago.

·         Councillor Codling would be providing local residents’ views as Ward Member.

·         The biggest concern was that the development had been approved as a one and a half storey increase whereas what had been built appeared to be two storeys. Councillor Codling contended that the rooms in the roof could be seen and the property was tall.

·         Old Oak was still a bungalow with roof space. The residents of Old Oak felt Juniper Rise was now taller than what had been expected. They were concerned about overshadowing.

·         There were very few properties in the village that consisted of three storeys and nothing of that size on the street, a precedent was therefore being set.  There was a mix of styles but the property in question stood out.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

16.  Members asked questions of the Ward Member and were given the following responses:

·         Comments regarding overshadowing were concerning the property to the north, which was a bungalow. The resident would have objected however, had been working away whilst the planning application notice was displayed.   

(Councillor Codling left the meeting at 9.27pm)

Member Questions to Officers

17.  Members asked questions of the Officers and were given the following responses:

·         In regard to which drawings were correct in terms of measurements, Mr Simon Till reported that the Planning Department had been presented with a drawing that provided an inaccurate topographical survey of the original ground level. The agent had highlighted where inaccuracies were and Officers accepted the agent’s findings. For accuracy purposes Mr Till clarified that the increase in height was 32cm.

·         The Officer’s recommendation would still have been approval if the increase had been a metre on the basis of the impact. The recommendation was therefore unchanged.

·         The objections were as summarised in the presentation and set out in the report. Some objections were based on the increase in height of the building, which was 320mm. Regarding removal of the dormer windows, Officers felt that this would reduce any overbearing impact and reduce any loss of privacy that might result from these windows. Officers did not feel that changes including the increase of 320mm, the alterations, materials and the design were substantial enough to increase impact on neighbouring amenity.

·         Regarding the extra volume of what had originally been approved compared to that built, Ms Toms responded that she did not have information regarding the volume of the property. As the site was within settlement it was not something that would normally be calculated.

·         Ms Toms stated that if an application was submitted for the property as built, it was possible it would have been approved. The height and style of the property was very similar to its neighbour. Levels would have to be looked at but given the similar style, Ms Toms did not feel the impact would be substantial enough to refuse planning permission.

·         Mr Till reported that when scrutinising the application, he had referred back to the Cold Ash Village Design Statement, which carried recommendations in terms of design. Mr Till had not found that the design proposed was in contravention to this. He had surveyed the site whilst reviewing the Officer’s recommendation, to see if he felt the design was inadequate. Mr Till was of the view that the design made a fair representation of meeting the requirements for quality design as intended by Policy CS14 and National Planning Policy Framework. Officers supported the design changes that had been made further to the original approval.

·         Mr Till reminded Members that the site was within settlement. Mr Till commented on the matter of a precedent being set and stated that any subsequent similar application in the area would be assessed on how it matched the street scene. In terms of the property in question, a decision had been taken in 2012 that the increase in size matched the street scene. National policy had moved on since this and specifically referred to quality design and any proposed development would be expected to meet a high standard of quality design. Mr Till stated that he would not necessarily suggest that the 2012 permission would have been granted against current assessment criteria.

·         On the matter of it being a new application in 2023 and whether this meant new guidelines would be followed rather than previous guidelines, Mr Till reported that the fall-back position of the 2012 permission was a material planning consideration. Members would have to be satisfied that there was a demonstrable and high level of additional visual harm associated with the new design as opposed to what had been originally approved. Officers were of the view that the change in design would not cause a sufficient level of additional harm.

·         The materiality of the fall-back position needed to be considered and how this would set a strong precedent within an appeal situation.

Debate

18.  Councillor Woollaston commented on the matter of it being a retrospective planning application. This was something Members had voiced being principally against in the past. Councillor Woollaston did not however feel that the changes were significant enough for Members to go against the Officer recommendation.

19.  Councillor Clive Hooker stated that following the site visit and upon viewing the drawings he had felt great sympathy for the neighbour. He had felt a metre increase above the velux windows was excessive. It had however since been clarified by the agent that it was not a metre and this made the application difficult to argue against. From the road view and transition of the roof lines, Councillor Hooker still felt the rise caused by the property in question was excessive. There was fear that if another bungalow was developed then the increase in roof heights on the side of the road could be detrimental to the street scene. Unfortunately however, Councillor Hooker felt that it would be difficult to not approve the application.

20.  Councillor Gaines referred to the plans that showed the footprints of the two properties Shannon and Hailstone. Councillor Gaines thought that the footprints of these two properties looked to be larger than that of Juniper Rise. It was noted that one objection had referred to the increase in footprint of Juniper Rise being overly large for the site, but felt that other properties nearby had similar footprints. The Chairman asked a slide to be shown from the Planning Officer’s presentation that showed the view Councillor Gaines was referring to. 

(Members decided that agenda 4(1) should be deferred to the next meeting in order to provide time to give it fair consideration.)

21.  The Chairman concluded from viewing the slides that Councillor Gaines’ point regarding Shannon and Hailstone having a similar footprint to Juniper Rise was valid. A window in the roofline of one of the properties could also be seen.

22.  Councillor Patrick Clark noted that the area itself had been made up of bungalows previously. The application site was surrounded by other buildings that were once bungalows and therefore it seemed like there had been a quite a lot of variation in the past. It therefore seemed strange to suggest there should not be any variation in the future.

23.  Councillor Hooker felt that the question was around the retrospective element of the application and how it had changed over and above what had been approved.

24.  Councillor Hooker proposed that Members support the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission.

25.  Regarding additional conditions, Councillor Gaines suggested it should be ensured that no further changes could be made to the plans. The Chairman noted from the plans (102b) that there was a window that would overlook neighbours. The Chairman did not want the application to be approved with the possibility of this being added afterwards.

26.  Mr Till advised that the window was clearly shown on the plans as being omitted from the 2012 application and was therefore a deletion. Secondly the Officer recommendation included a requirement for compliance with the approved drawings.

27.  The Chairman requested that a condition be added to ensure a check was carried out on the plan that might be approved including measuring window sizes of what had been installed. Mr Till advised it could be requested that the Planning Enforcement Officer visit the site to ensure details complied with approved plans. Mr Till suggested that the Committee might wish to defer the item if they wished for this visit to take place prior to a decision being made.

28.  Mr Till stated that if it was discovered following a decision that further work had taken place that was not in accordance with the drawings submitted, then the applicant would have to correct this, or the item would need to be reconsidered based on a set of revised drawings. Officers had undertaken discussions with the planning agent and had been provided with reassurance that the window concerns had been raised and were the correct size. The Chairman declared, on the basis of Mr Till’s response, that he was happy to proceed with consideration of the application.

29.  Councillor Hooker proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

30.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hooker, seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Conditions

1.	Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:   22101.100A (Location and Block Plan), 22101.101B (Floor and Roof Plans and Section) and 22101.102B (Elevations) received on 2 February 2023.   Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
2.	Materials The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plan 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, 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).
3	Annex use The garage hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as Juniper Rise.   Reason:   The creation of a separate planning unit would conflict with the strategy for the location of new development and be unacceptable in the interests of ensuring a sustainable pattern of development.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP3 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

 

Informatives

1.	Proactive   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.	CIL   The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure.  A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice.  You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development.  Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges.  For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil
3.	Consent to enter adjoining land   You must obtain the prior consent of the owner and occupier of any land upon which it is necessary for you to enter in order construct, externally finish, decorate, or in any other way carry out any works in connection with this development, or to obtain any support from adjoining property.  This permission granted by the Council in no way authorises you to take such action without first obtaining this consent.