Agenda item

Proposal:	One 4 bed two storey dwelling with parking, cycle and refuse storage.(Re-submission of Approval 19/00995/FULD without any amendments)
Location:	Battery End Hall Battery End Newbury RG14 6NX
Applicant:	Prudential Properties
Recommendation:	The Service Director Development and Regulation be authorised to grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

 

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 23/02915/FUL – Battery End Hall, Battery End, Newbury, RG14 6NX in respect of one 4 bed two storey dwelling with parking, cycle and refuse storage. (Re-submission of Approval 19/00995/FULD without any amendments).

2.     Mr Patrick Haran 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He indicated that the proposal was similar to the previous application that had been approved. Highways Officers were happy that it complied with standards/policy relating to parking, electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking.

 

Continuation of meeting

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Part 3, Rule 10, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(4).

5.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andy Moore, Town Council representative, Ms Jennifer Evans, objector, Mr Azar Sharif applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

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

·         This was the third application for the site and Mr Moore was pleased that it would be considered by the Western Area Planning Committee.

·         Newbury Town Council accepted that this was a good brownfield site for development with a dwelling, but in 2019 they had objected on grounds of over-development and that the hedge should be retained. In 2022, they had objected for reasons of over-development and because the proposed dwelling was too close to the hedge. The hedge was of amenity and biodiversity value. The Town Council had objected to the current application on the grounds of over-development and the need to protect the hedge.

·         The Town Council owned the recreation ground to the west of the property. The boundary and ownership of the hedge was difficult to establish. However, the Town Council was seeking to regularise their ownership of the hedge and to maintain it thereafter.

·         The proposed hedge retention plan was considered inadequate, and officers had proposed a condition to improve it to ensure the hedge’s retention, which was the outcome desired by all parties.

·         The applicant’s representative had accepted that the western wall of the current hut was the western boundary of the plot and that the hedge should be protected.

·         The proposed development was considered to be over-development, as it appeared overly large for the plot.

·         The eastern wall of the plot coincided with the eastern boundary of the plot and the plot width had been measured at 9.9m. The plans did not include dimensions, but had been scaled at 9.5m - 9.8m.

·         The plans showed space down each side of the dwelling to allow bins to be brought to the street from the bin store at the rear of the building, but the dimensions did not reflect reality.

·         Failing to measure the plot properly and proposing too wide a dwelling, raised concerns about loss of amenity for the neighbour and/or loss of the hedge.

·         The Committee was urged to refuse the application or impose a condition related to the width of the building.

·         The applicant should be encouraged to rebuild relationships with the neighbours and return with a proposal that fitted the plot.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

7.     Members asked questions of the Parish Council’s representative and were given the following responses:

·         The hedge was not being actively maintained.

·         The Town Council intended to claim ownership of the hedge and maintain it thereafter.

Objector Representation

8.     Ms Evans in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Objectors did not object to the site being used for residential use, but the proposed scheme was too wide for the plot.

·         Permission was originally granted in 2019, despite local and Newbury Town Council objections and without the submission of full and correct information, and without appreciation of constraints as evidenced by recent ecological surveys.

·         The site was then sold on, and planning approval lapsed.

·         The new owner submitted a replica application in December 2022, but in the interim, the local community had become aware of the detail of the development and its impact on the adjacent historic hedge, which was not shown on any drawings, and the impact on the natural setting and enclosure of the recreation ground. This application was refused in July 2023.

·         The current application was identical to the first two and errors persisted on the plans and application form, which had been brought to the attention of the case officer.

·         The proposed house did not fit on the site, and the adjacent hedge was not shown on any of the drawings, apart from the hedge retention plan. This plan was inaccurate but, it had been listed as an approved plan.

·         The developer was reliant on building 1m into a 2m strip that he did not own. Officers had indicated that this was not a material planning consideration. The objectors disagreed, as the proposed development put the adjacent hedge at risk, which the applicant had acknowledged that he did not own.

·         The previous application had been turned down because the applicant had not submitted an ecology appraisal. This had not been requested for the first application.

·         26 letters of objection relating to use of the hedge by protected species and potential loss of a biodiverse habitat contributed to this decision. Objectors felt vindicated by the ecology survey. The Ecology Team had even suggested that a covenant be placed on the hedge.

·         The proposed development extended over land beyond the applicant’s ownership and would put the hedge at increased risk. The red line on the plan coincided with the centre/trunk line of the hedge. The hedge’s canopy overhung the roof of the existing hut.

·         Objectors were concerned that the proposed development would have a two storey wall located 1m closer to the hedge and a new side access between the building and the hedge. Construction of the side access would result in reducing the ground level within the root protection area, which would be in addition to damage resulting from excavation for the foundations. The objectors suggested that the hedge would be damaged at root and canopy level.

·         For the 2019 application, the case officer had indicated that it would be unlikely that there would be any impacts on protected species, as no protected species had been noted in this area. They had also said that while loss of the hedge would be unfortunate, it was not a protected hedge and it did not provide green infrastructure linkage. These points had been disproved by the ecology appraisal and bat survey.

·         The Tree Officer had indicated that the hedge brought biodiversity, pollution and carbon sequestration benefits, as well as screening for the recreation ground, which was a registered village green.

·         The applicant had ignored Policy CS18 by putting the hedge at risk.

·         Objectors challenged why it was not a material consideration that the application put at risk a protected habitat on land outside of the applicant’s ownership, when building within his ownership would avoid this scenario and attract local support.

·         Objectors suggested that the width of the house be reduced to be in line with the western wall of the existing hut to keep it within the applicant’s ownership boundary.

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·         Residents were aware that there was a ditch that ran along the eastern side of the hedge as far as Conifer Crest.

·         The proposed development boundary did not coincide with the applicant’s ownership.

Applicant Representation

10.  Mr Sharif in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application had originally been given consent in 2019.

·         The property had been purchased on the basis of that approval.

·         The current application remained unchanged from the original.

·         During Covid, the project manager had been in poor health and so the scheme had not been started.

·         The original application had gone through stringent checks as part of the approvals process.

·         People were making fictitious allegations that the hedge would be demolished.

·         It was a tragedy that the hedge had not been maintained by the Town Council.

·         There was no ditch visible to the east of the hedge.

·         Historically, hedges were used to define property boundaries.

·         The Council’s Legal Team had been asked to investigate the ownership of the strip of land to the east of the hedge. An advertisement had been placed in the paper to seek information about the ownership, but no owner came forward. It was suggested that this strip was part of the site.

·         An additional application for the site (21/00547), had sought an amendment of the original application to erect a 1.8m high timber fence to denote the northwestern site boundary.

·         The proposed house would be in keeping with others in the area and would uplift the visual appearance of that part of the road. The existing hut was in poor condition and there was a problem with rat infestation. The new property would be built to a high standard.

·         Residents had not raised any concerns when the Scout Association had owned the property. Mr Sharif was being treated unfairly, with ridiculous objections and false allegations about his intention to destroy the hedge.

·         The property had a well-defined plot and the Council had checked the dimensions for the proposed house.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

11.  Members asked questions of the Applicant and were given the following responses:

·         It was confirmed that there would be access to the rear of the property. There was an existing gate to the recreation ground. Also, there would be enough room along the side of the property to bring bins through to the front. A reputable firm of architects had prepared the plans and would not have created a development that was not serviceable. Access to the sub-station was from the other side.

·         It was acknowledged that the Committee could only consider the application in front of them and could not take account of previous applications.

·         The applicant confirmed that the proposed development would be built entirely within his own land – the current scheme merely sought a renewal of the previous planning permission. The only change was a plan that showed the hedge detail in relation to the building. It was suggested that the trunk line of the hedge should be taken as the property boundary.

·         The Scout Hut had been set back from the hedge and around 250mm from the neighbour’s boundary. The neighbour had affixed their fence to the existing building, which was illegal.

Ward Member Representation

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

·         He echoed the points made by Mr Moore and Ms Evans.

·         If the developer had engaged with residents and Councillors, and listened to their concerns, the house would be built by now. The house just needed to be made a little smaller.

·         The site maps all showed the red line going through the middle of the hedge and there was nothing in the documents to suggest that the hedge would be protected.

·         The hedge was crucial, and the fact that the maps were wrong was a matter for serious concern.

·         Even if the current owner was serious about maintaining the hedge, what about subsequent owners? The maps suggested that they owned part of the hedge.

·         The Scouts Association had thought that their plot was up to the western edge of the building, which conformed to the sub-station and the neighbouring house to the rear. Also, the cable to the sub-station ran along the hedge.

·         The application did not address the issue of the land ownership between the hut and the hedge.

·         The recreation ground was owned by Newbury Town Council. While ownership of the hedge or the strip of land to the east was unclear, common sense would suggest that the ditch went with the hedge. There were doubts as to whether the applicant owned all of the land that he was proposing to develop.

·         The Hedge Retention Plan stated that the existing fence was to be retained and repaired if required, but there was no fence.

·         The notice in the Newbury Weekly News had appeared a week later than the stated date of 14 December 2023, when readership would have been much lower due to Christmas.

·         There were discrepancies in the documents, which had not been rectified since the original application in 2019.

·         The application form indicated that there were no trees or hedges on land adjacent that could influence the development, or which might be important as part of the local landscape character. This was incorrect as evidenced by the bat survey, which had indicated that the hedge should be retained. The hedge was also used by birds and it was a wildlife corridor too. The buffer should be retained between the house and the hedge.

·         The neighbour to the east was having to take legal action to protect their property boundary.

·         For all of these reasons, the Committee was urged to reject the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

13.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·         The proposed development was considered to be consistent with plot sizes/ratios along the road, and had a similar footprint, height, and side setbacks as other properties, and the site sat comfortably within the plot.

·         The plans showed that there would be 1m to each side of the proposed house, which would be sufficient to provide access to the rear.

·         The applicant had submitted a lawful planning application and officers were happy that the plans were sufficient to identify the plot of land proposed for the dwelling and the constraints of the site. If the applicant did not have sufficient land within his control to the east and west of the building to provide access to the rear of the property, then the site could be considered to be over-developed, which would be a material planning consideration. The applicant had served the correct notice regarding the strip of land to the west of the property. However, if Members were not satisfied that sufficient land in the applicant’s ownership could be demonstrated to provide the access to the rear, then they could consider refusal of the application. Similarly, if Members did not feel that there was sufficient land to be able to protect the hedge, then they could consider refusal. Deferring the application to undertake site measurements would only yield details that were already available. The Planning Officer’s view was that there was sufficient land available to provide the proposed dwelling.

Debate

15.  Councillor Vickers opened the debate. He suggested that the Committee could either approve the application if the applicant accepted the amended ecology conditions, or they could refuse it on the grounds that the hedge could not be protected. He indicated that he was leaning towards the first option. He suggested that it could be up to other forms of law to consider whether the applicant had sufficient land to build the proposed house. He felt that it would be possible to show that the Town Council owned the whole hedge. Historically they had been created by digging a ditch and using the excavated earth to create a mound into which the hedge was planted. He proposed to accept the amended Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and the update report.

16.  Councillor Amirtharaj suggested that it would be a matter for litigation if the applicant was seeking to build on land not in his ownership. He suggested that the Committee should look beyond the technical aspects of this application.

17.  Councillor Abbs did not feel that the amount of land owned by the developer was sufficient to be able to build the proposed property. He stated that the hedge must be protected. He felt that there were two good reasons for refusal and indicated that he would be minded to oppose the application.

18.  Councillor Vickers’ proposal was not seconded.

19.  Councillor Abbs proposed to reject Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission on the grounds that the application could not be carried out on land within the applicant’s ownership, without adverse impact to the adjacent hedge that was of protected habitat value and ecology value, and that it could not be carried out without over-development of the site, resulting in poor quality design and failure to provide access to the rear for amenity access. This was seconded by Councillor Barnett

20.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Barnett to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons:

·         The application could be carried out on land within the applicant’s ownership, without adverse impact to the adjacent hedge that was of protected habitat value and ecology value; and

·         It could not be carried out without over-development of the site, resulting in poor quality design and failure to provide access to the rear for amenity access.