Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Applications 24/01467/HOUSE & 24/01541/LBC in respect of a two storey rear extension to create two en-suite bathrooms with internal alterations, relocation of existing oil boiler and increase in chimney height, at Catslide Cottage, Hill Green, Leckhampstead, Newbury, RG20 8RB.

2.      Ms Harriet Allen 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Cis Taylor, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

4.      Mrs Taylor addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.      Councillor Clive Hooker addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The previous approval application for a one-storey extension had originally been submitted as a two-storey extension. The Conservation Officer’s comments had applied to the original application for the two-storey extension, so could also be taken to apply to this application.

·       The 1990s extension had increased the floorspace of the building by 6%, while the current proposal would increase the floorspace by 27% from the original. It was acknowledged that the catslide roof distorted the appearance of the property.

·       It was confirmed that part of the catslide roof would remain if the proposed extension was built. However, the Conservation Officer had been concerned that the original 18^th century catslide roof would mostly be lost. The Conservation Officer had also been concerned about the loss of the historic fabric of the building, the further erosion of the historic plan form, the obscuring of the house from that elevation, and the blurring of the distinction with the original house. It was suggested that these aspects were relevant to the listed building consent.

·       The planning application considered wider issues such as the views from the public rights of way. However, Officers indicated that the public footpath was a considerable distance away, so views of the property were limited.

·       The Conservation Officer’s assessment had been that the proposed development would largely remove the original catslide roof from the appearance of the cottage.

Debate

9.      Councillor Howard Woolaston opened the debate. He did not feel that the proposed development would have a fundamental effect on the building. He was also swayed by the needs of the family. He indicated that he was minded to go against the Officer’s recommendations.

10.   Members were advised that considerations for the listed building consent would be relevant to the planning permission. Members were further advised that personal circumstances would not normally be a relevant planning consideration, but ensuring a decent housing stock could be a relevant factor.

11.   Councillor Denise Gaines disagreed with Councillor Woollaston. She felt that the catslide roof and thatch made it a distinctive property. Very few properties like this remained. She supported the Conservation Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. She noted that permission had already been granted for the ground floor bedroom.

12.   Councillor Paul Dick agreed with Councillor Gaines. He acknowledged the needs of the applicants, but he recognised that these were not relevant considerations. He felt that the proposal would make a significant difference to this 300 year old property, so he was minded to support the Officer’s recommendation.

13.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj noted that some of the catslide roof would be retained and highlighted that there would be no change to the front of the property. He did not feel that there would be a major loss incurred as a result of the development, and he did not consider the increase in floorspace to be a major change that would transform the building. He also noted that extensions had been permitted at other properties in Hill Green.

14.   Councillor Nigel Foot declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he was the Council’s Heritage Champion. He indicated that he would abstain in the vote.

15.   Councillor Woollaston proposed to go against Officer’s recommendation and grant planning consent for the following reasons: the proposal was an amendment to an existing extension carried out in the 1990s; it could not be seen by the public other than a distant view from the public footpath; and it would not damage the structure of the building. This was seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj who noted that the listed status of the building would not be affected by the proposed extension.

16.   Officers suggested conditions requiring commencement within three years and approval of plans. These were accepted by the proposer and seconder.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was not carried.

18.   Councillor Gaines proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports. This was seconded by Councillor Dick.

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Gaines, seconded by Councillor Dick to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

20.   Councillor Gaines proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse listed building consent for the reasons listed in the main report and the update report. This was seconded by Councillor Dick.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Gaines, seconded by Councillor Dick to refuse listed building consent. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission and listed building consent for the reasons set out in the main and update reports.