Agenda item

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was a close friend. As her interest could be construed as prejudicial she left the meeting at 7.25pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter, apart from speaking as Ward Member).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 11/02739/HOUSE in respect of two front elevation dormers, entrance door porch, single storey rear bay window extension and construction of front boundary wall with entrance gates.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs E White, Parish Council representative, and Mr Maurus Rimmer and Mr J D Dutson, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mrs White in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council had no objections regarding the alterations to the main house, however, they were opposed to the proposed wall.

·                    The current wall was deemed acceptable, however, the proposed wall was in contrast to the Pangbourne Village Design Statement and other walls on Flowers Hill.

·                    The Parish Council would have had no objections had the proposed wall been lower, or preferably railings and landscaping.

Councillor Bedwell asked Mrs White if the Parish would have raised an objection to a hedgerow rather than the wall and Mrs White confirmed that there would have been no objection to this. Mrs White confirmed that no discussions had taken place between the Parish Council and the applicant regarding the height of the wall.

Councillor Law noted that there were similar walls to that proposed within the Village Design Statement such as on Tidmarsh Hill however, not on Flowers Hill itself.

Mr Rimmer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr Rimmer had lived in the property opposite The Chestnuts for 29 years. He had no problem with the proposed extension to the house, however, was opposed to the garden wall.

·                    He understood that the applicant was aiming to reduce the sound and sight of the passing road, however, the wall proposed would hinder the scene of Flowers Hill. It was felt that Flowers Hill could not be compared to Tidmarsh Hill.

·                    Railings rather than a brick wall would be much more acceptable.

Mr Dutson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    36 years ago Flowers Hill had been an old country lane and over the years the surface had deteriorated. The community had raised £3k to have the surface tarmaced.

·                    He had planted daffodils to the left hand side of Flowers Hill with the aim of retaining the character of the area. It was felt that railings and a hedge like that used opposite The Chestnuts would be much more suitable and in-keeping.

·                    Properties opposite The Chestnuts were open fronted. The understanding was that they would stay open fronted.

·                    Residents of the property next door to The Chestnuts were concerned that if planning permission was granted, in the future the brick wall might be extended.

·                    It was agreed that the wall would soften passing traffic and keep intruders out, however a hedge with railings would do the same job without compromising the visual aspect of the area.

·                    He had no objections to the proposed extension.

(Councillor Bale joined the meeting at 7.37pm to speak as Ward Member).

Councillor Bale, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                    It had been important for Members of the Committee during their site visit to see the potential impact of the wall on the area.

·                    The Pangbourne Village Design Statement should have been taken into consideration, however, was not mentioned in the planning report.

·                    Most of the properties on Flowers Hill had open frontages, lawns and shrubs.

·                    The extension of the wall around the property was the main issue. There were similar walls on Tidmarsh Hill however, they led onto a more built up area.

·                    It was felt that the proposal needed to be more in-keeping with Flowers Hill, such as a wrought iron gate.

Councillor Pask asked if the Pangbourne Village Design Statement had been adopted by West Berkshire Council and it was confirmed by Councillor Bale that it had been.

(Councillor Bale left the meeting at 7.41pm).

Councillor Tim Metcalfe questioned whether a wall required planning permission. Karen Buckingham confirmed that it depended upon whether the proposed wall would be considered to be adjacent to the public highway, but that it was unclear if Flowers Hill would constitute a public highway. David Pearson clarified that part of the wall certainly required planning permission as it was adjacent to Tidmarsh Road which was definitely a public highway. Regarding the height of a wall, it could be two metres high if not adjacent to a highway and one metre if it was adjacent to a highway. If a wall was further forward than the dwelling then it was considered adjacent to a highway.

If Members of the Committee were opposed to the wall, then the whole application would have to be refused.

In considering the above application Members felt that the proposed wall would be intrusive and that railings and a hedge, like that used elsewhere on Flowers Hill, would be much more suitable. It was felt that the wall would encourage urbanisation, was contrary to the Village Design Statement and would be out of character to the Street Scene.

David Pearson confirmed that the Pangbourne Village Design Statement was taken into account when the planning report for the application was written and apologised to Councillor Bale that it did not actually feature within the report.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: