Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(1)) concerning Planning Application 24-01672-HOUSE, Crevan, Beals Lane, Tilehurst in respect of a proposed Garage to the front garden.

2.    Mr Simon Till 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, Mr Mike Ford, objector, Ms Nicola Taplin, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.    Mr Mike Ford addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee – 4 December 2024 Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The garage at the rear of the property was accessed via the gate opposite the school and was the only garage accessible via Little Heath Lane.

·       The garage at the rear of the property was used for extra storage. It had stored vehicles in the past.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.    Ms Nicola Taplin addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee – 4 December 2024 Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       The lane to the rear of the property was shielded from view from the four properties with limited surveillance and could be entered into undetected by residents.

·       The front of the site was more secure.

·       The were a number of security methods that could be employed to secure the rear of the site, which would involve installing security lights, which could be harmful to the rural character and appearance of the area.

·       Further along Beals Lane there were dwellings in front of the building line, with a forward projecting garage. The building line was scattered and had a rural layout, and did not have an urban building line.

·       The applicant would be prepared to accept a change to the proposed roof if members agreed that it would lessen the impact on the character of the lane.

Ward Member Representation

8.    Councillor Joanne Stewart addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee – 4 December 2024 Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

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

·       The volume of traffic would be the same whether it was in front or behind the building.

·       If the volume of traffic was directed to the rear of the property it would increase noise and disturbance, impacting residents using their back gardens.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers noted the location of the trees, which appeared to be mature hedges and trees, but were unable to comment on the height of the trees.

·       Officers noted that building lines were in terms of the prevailing character and appearance of an area rather than a fixed reference point. Where properties honour a traditional uniform setback from the highway or roadway, that would be considered to be a strong building line and formative within the character and appearance of the area.

·       Officers noted that there were five dwellings in the lane where their foremost projections were within the building line, with a deep setback from Beals Lane.

·       Officers noted that in planning terms, garages were generally used for storage rather than vehicular parking.

·       Officers stated that a flat building roof would create a functional appearance that would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of buildings in the area.

·       Officers noted that landscaping conditions could be added, but considered that it would not offer sufficient mitigation, as it could be mitigation of a potentially transient nature, as the mature trees and hedges at the front of the property could be removed once the condition time limit expired.

·       Officers noted that Tree Protection Orders were used to protect mature trees that have particular area character value and were at direct risk of being removed due to development that may be undertaken, and any landscaping mitigation in the application would not fit the usual justification for a TPO. Trees needed to be present before a TPO, and there was a high potential that a TPO would be found unsound procedurally on new landscaping.

·       Officers had not sought amendments to the application because the impact of the building both as proposed and with any likely potential alternatives to be proposed would be too significant to be acceptable. 

Debate

11. Councillor Ross Mackinnon opened the debate by stating that Officers had given one reason for refusal of the application and noted that it rested on the committee’s view on whether the erection of the garage would affect the setting of the site within public views from the out of settlement ruling. Councillor Mackinnon did not see how the application could not have an adverse impact.

12. Noting the building line on Beals Lane, Councillor Richard Somner felt that landscaping amendments would likely not mitigate the impact of the proposal on the local area. He noted that the proposed building could be built to the rear of the property, and reasonable security measures could be taken. Councillor Somner noted that the proposal would likely only be relevant to the current owners, and it would likely have a different use with new owners.

13. Councillor Jeremy Cottam noted that the storage of sports cars was not a planning condition. He felt that the proposal would be intrusive into the character of the lane and supported the Officer’s recommendations.

14. Councillor Justin Pemberton noted that the proposal was in front of the building line and would change the street scene. He supported the Officer’s recommendations.

15. Councillor Clive Taylor had been unable to attend the site visit, but he knew the lane well. He supported the Officer’s recommendations.

16. Councillor Cottam proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Geoff Mayes.

17. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Mayes, 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:

Refusal Reasons

1.    Character of Area/NWDNL

The proposed works are for a garage stood proud from the frontage of the main dwelling within the site and adjacent to Beals Lane. The surrounding properties all conform to a clear, well-defined building line, which is a feature of the street scene and is not interrupted by development in front of dwellings. By virtue of interrupting this orderly pattern of development the proposed garage would appear at odds with the pattern of surrounding built form and thereby visually detract from the open frontage character of its surroundings. As such it would have an adverse impact on the setting of the site within public views from the out of settlement rural lane. The impact of the proposed development would therefore be contrary to the WBC House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004), as well as Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, which require that new development demonstrates a high quality of design and respects the settlement form, pattern and character, and the National Planning Policy Framework.