Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/01577/FUL in respect of the proposed demolition of industrial units and pigsty, and the construction of 4no. residential dwellings and parking provision (pursuant to refusal 22/00106/FULD).

2.      Sian Cutts, 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main report, and a S106 Agreement. 

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the concerns raised by the local community had been noted for this rural road. However, it had been assessed by highways officers on the basis that the site previously housed a bakery. There would therefore have been many vehicles travelling to and from the site, including delivery vehicles.

4.      Should the proposal be approved, the number of vehicles was expected to decrease and vehicles were expected to be smaller in scale when compared to its previous commercial use. Refuse vehicles could access the site.

5.      The proposal was compliant with the Council’s parking standards, would provide EV charging points and cycle storage. There were no objections to the application on highways grounds.

6.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cowan, Parish Council representative, Mr Neil Courtney, objector, and Mr David Mead, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

7.      Mr Cowan addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=8932

Member Questions to the Parish Council

8.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

9.      Mr Courtney addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=8418

Member Questions to the Objector

10.   Members asked questions of clarification of the objector and received the following responses:

·       There had been a previous proposal for two dwellings on this site. This was a much more suitable scheme but it was withdrawn due to concerns over the brownfield areas of the site.

·       The site had flooded in June 2023. This followed heavy rains and the storm drains were unable to cope.

Agent Representation

11.   Mr Mead addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=9150

Member Questions to the Agent

12.   Members asked questions of clarification of the agent and received the following responses:

·       Mr Mead was not aware of a previous proposal for two houses on this site. He stated that the number of dwellings for this proposal had reduced from six to four dwellings.

·       There were two semi-detached sheds which were shared by neighbouring properties.

·       He acknowledged that his brief as agent was to maximise the use of the land.

·       It was not particularly unusual to have obscured glass for a bedroom window. It was chosen in this case as preferable to having a roof light.

Ward Member Representation

13.   Councillor Paul Dick addressed the Committee on behalf of his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Heather Codling. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=9628

Member Questions to the Ward Member

14.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

15.   Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       A previous application for the site had been refused by planning officers under delegated powers as it did not achieve nutrient neutrality and there were drainage concerns. Should Members refuse planning permission for additional reasons then the Council could incur costs at an appeal. However, this would depend upon the strength of any additional reasons for refusal.

·       Affordable housing provision did not apply to this proposal.

·       In terms of amenity space, officers sought to follow supplementary planning guidance. The gardens proposed would provide basic requirements including cycle storage, the gardens would not be significantly overlooked or overshadowed. The conclusion of the case officer for the refused planning application was that amenity space was sufficient.

·       The conclusion reached by officers for this application was that the applicant had worked to overcome the specified refusal reasons of the previous planning application.

·       The Village Design Statement was a material consideration and was given weight. Officers felt that the proposal was compliant with the Village Design Statement as it was the intention to use traditional materials and have cottage style windows.

·       It was not felt that the development would worsen the flood risk in Chieveley. The infiltration system being proposed could result in improvements to drainage.

·       The obscured glass and non-opening window applied to plot 2. This would be on the side elevation of the dwelling. Only the high level upper window could be opened and this was at the required height to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties. Officers considered this to be acceptable.

Debate

16.   Councillor Clive Hooker opened the debate by stating that this was an attractive downlands village. He felt the proposal before the Committee was a poor design and constituted overdevelopment of the plot. Garden space was small.

17.   Councillor Hooker considered that if the application was rejected and the decision appealed, then the Planning Inspector could be sympathetic to the Committee’s views. He did not feel that the risk of costs should be a deciding factor.

18.   Councillor Tony Vickers was surprised that this application was recommended for approval by officers when considering the planning policy implications. He was concerned that approval could set a precedent for future applications. The private amenity space was not acceptable, nor was it acceptable for bedroom windows to be obscured.

19.   Councillor Adrian Abbs voiced his concerns. The agent stated that it was the intention to maximise the space available, but Councillor Abbs felt that four dwellings at this site was overdevelopment.

20.   Councillor Abbs proposed to refuse planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, due to the lack of amenity space, it was contrary to policy, and the line of sight between the proposal and neighbouring properties, and use of obscured glazing to overcome this, was of concern. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Dick with refusal reasons added of overdevelopment and being an unacceptable design in a conservation area.

21.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj felt the proposal contravened the Chieveley Village Design Statement. Debra Inston commented that while officers felt the proposal was in accordance with the Village Design Statement, Members could reach a different conclusion. Councillor Abbs stated that the points made by the Parish Council showed that the proposal was contrary to the Village Design Statement.

22.   Councillor Abbs and Councillor Dick, as proposer and seconder, agreed to add, as a reason for refusal, the proposal being contrary to the Chieveley Village Design Statement.

23.   Debra Inston, Development Control Team Leader, clarified the reasons for refusal:

·       Overdevelopment of the site, causing harm to the character of the conservation area. The proposal was contrary to policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Council Core Strategy, and was not in keeping with the Chieveley Village Design Statement.

·       Sub-standard amenity space was proposed which would impact negatively on future occupants of the dwellings.

·       Harm to the amenity of the neighbouring flats due to the distance proposed between the flats and the proposed properties.

24.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Dick to refuse. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

1.    The application site is situated within the Chieveley Conservation Area, which forms the historic centre of the village of Chieveley. The proposed dense arrangement of four dwellings, with such limited outdoor amenity space would appear wholly discordant and cramped in comparison to the pattern and character of development in the surrounding area. The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site, by virtue of its mass, scale and inappropriate design, resulting in a detrimental impact that fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Chieveley Conservation Area. This is contrary to the NPPF, Policies CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the Chieveley Village Design Statement (2002).

2.    The proposed development fails to provide a sufficient amount of private amenity space to serve the future occupiers of the proposed development, resulting in inadequate living conditions, and so is contrary to Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and The Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document Part 2: Residential Development (2006).

3.    Plots 1 and 2 are situated 10-12 metres away from the flats to the east of the application site, the first floor windows of the proposed dwellings will result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived loss of privacy to the occupiers of those flats, which will be harmful to their living conditions. This will be contrary to Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and The Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document Part 2: Residential Development (2006).