Agenda item

19. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00732/HOUSE in respect of the erection of side extension to existing dwelling and internal alterations at Gardeners Cottage, Buckhold, Pangbourne, Reading, RG8 8QA. It was decided that Agenda Item 4(3)), concerning Planning Application 25/00733/LBC, would be considered under the same agenda item but with a separate vote.

20.   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 report.

21.   In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Andrew House, Parish Council representative, andMiss Karen Lane-Standley, Mr Mark Pettitt and Mr Richard Massey, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

22.Andrew House addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 August 2025 (1:33:27) 

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

23.Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

24.Miss Karen Lane-Standley, Mr Mark Pettitt and Mr Richard Massey addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 August 2025 (1:37:49)

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

25.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

26.Councillor Ross Mackinnon addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 August 2025 (1:44:58)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

27.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Simon Till advised Members that this was a tricky application to assess. He noted that the extension approved in 1996 created a single built form, and the combination of the historical core and the extension that was approved in 1996 had effectively doubled the size of the building. The issue with the proposal was that the guidance in relation to listed buildings maintained that the listed building needed to retain its significance within the site. He advised that there was no hard and fast rule but conservation officers tended to object to applications that were going to subsume the original building unless there was a public benefit to outweigh this.

·       Simon Till advised that any departure from policy had certain legislative requirements associated with it, but that overturning officer’s recommendation would not necessarily mean departing from policy in a case where design was the concern. He advised Members could take a view on all the circumstances and whether the proposal would do harm to the listed building.

·       Simon Till advised there was no concrete definition of what constituted harm to a listed building. He informed Members that they were expected to reach a conclusion based on whether they felt that the significance of the listed building would be retained. He referenced the report noting that the building had a particular place in the wider estate as an ancillary cottage, a necessarily small building which was to be greatly increased in size under this proposal. He advised that there was a danger of a further extension subsuming the building and fundamentally changing how the building was read that informed the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

·       Simon Till advised that the North Wessex Downs Natural Landscape organisation was finding it difficult to respond to applications but was unsure whether they had been contacted for comment. He highlighted that it was the duty of the Local Planning Authority to make reasonable decisions regarding the future and heritage of the National Landscape. Councillor Vicky Poole advised she had approached the NL organisation, and they had no comment as it was not something that was likely to affect the overall visual characteristics of the landscape.

·       Simon Till advised that there was a prepared list of proposed conditions should Members be minded to go against officers’ recommendations.

Debate

29.   Councillor Ross Mackinnon opened the debate by highlighting that this was a judgement call. He credited Simon Till for recognising that. He felt that a one size fits all approach was not always best. He highlighted that there was no clear definition of substantial harm and noted that from the road, the first thing that was going to be visible, should this application be approved, was the listed building and the extensions were going to be round the back. He advised that he could not see who this proposal was harming, noting Councillor Poole’s information that this was something that the AONB would not look to comment on. He felt that the extension would not cause substantial harm due to the secluded nature of the site.

30.   Councillor Justin Pemberton noted that the parish council and the ward member spoke positively about the application and felt that this was something that needed to be taken into account. He advised that whilst he sympathised with the applicants’ personal circumstances, the position of officers could not be clearer. He highlighted the Inspector’s report from 2014. He noted that the development needed to be sympathetic to its surroundings and the existing form of the listed building. He felt that the increased floor space (totalling 69%) and how it would sit within the context of the site made it difficult for him to override a number of policies that had only recently been adopted. He believed that the only way to go against officers’ recommendations was to interpret the Local Plan in a particular way. He felt he could not discount the professional view of officers that this would represent a disproportionate extension to a grade II listed building. He felt that the number of policies this application contravened made it difficult for him to support.

31.   Councillor Mackinnon was surprised by Councillor Pemberton’s comments. He advised that the 69% increase in floor space was the increase in floor space delivered by the previous extension. He believed that Simon Till was clear that this was a judgement call and it was for Members to judge whether this application caused substantial harm. He noted that many of the policies were complied with and that the application was balanced.

32.   Councillor Paul Kander noted the point of the Committee was to deal with difficult applications. He felt that this was not clear cut and it was for Members to determine what significant harm meant. He advised that old buildings had always been built upon and that the proposals were sympathetic to the original building. He believed that it was important for a common sense view to be taken and highlighted that if this was not to be built on it could become unfit for purpose and fall into disrepair. He felt that common sense and usability should prevail.

33.   Councillor Clive Taylor largely agreed with Councillor Kander’s comments. He noted that the original extension was very well constructed and it was difficult to tell it apart from the original building. He felt that it was for Members to judge whether the conclusion, that this caused significant harm, was the correct one. He highlighted that St Andrews School was on the estate and was surrounded by a number of odd buildings that had received planning consent. He felt that the changes proposed would improve the amenity of the site.

34.   Councillor Poole extended her sympathies to the applicant, she felt that people looked to adapt their properties for their needs and this was what the application was trying to do. She could see both perspectives of this application but was leaning towards supporting this.

35.   Councillor Tom McCann noted the quality of the debate and was swayed by Councillor Kander’s comments. He agreed that it was important to be sensitive to the future use of buildings. He felt well designed buildings would add character and was leaning towards supporting the application. 

36.   Councillor Kander proposed to reject Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to conditions listed below, including a condition that the property not be split into multiple properties. This was seconded by Councillor Taylor.

37.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Kander, seconded by Councillor Taylor, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant conditional planning permission, which would include a condition that the property not be split into multiple properties.

Conditions

1.    Commencement

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

Reason:   To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.    Approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

231013-01 - Location Plan & Proposed Site Plan received on 27/03/2025

231013-02 - Proposed Site Plan received on 27/03/2025

231013-03 - Proposed North and West Elevation received on 27/03/2025

231013-03 - Proposed South and East Elevation received on 27/03/2025

Cover Letter received on 10/04/2025

Heritage Statement received on 31/03/2025

Design and Access Statement received on 10/04/2025

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Bat Roost Assessment) received on 27/03/2025

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in interest of proper planning.

3.    Approved materials

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with those specified on the associated listed building consent reference 25/00733/LBC.

 Reason:   To ensure the appropriate use of external materials.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies SP7, SP9 and DM10 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

4.    Ecology

All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Bat risk Assessment (March 2025, Bombus Ecology Limited), as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the Local Planning Authority prior to determination.

Reason: To ensure the adequate safeguarding of protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy SP11 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041.

5.    Ancillary use

The extension 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 Gardeners Cottage.

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, and Policies SP1, SP2 (if National Landscape), DM28, DM30 and DM44 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041.