Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of one 5no. bedroom dwelling with attached double garage and ancillary annex, provision of new access, gates, bike storage and bin storage.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Ramsey.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 155 to 188.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included clarification that the recommendation on page 156 had been inadvertently swapped with the recommendation on page 118. For clarity, the recommendation for the subject application was set out in agenda pages 156 to 162, with the bold text on page 156 swapped with the bold text on page 118.

Paul Kelly, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Paul stated that there were a number of inaccuracies with the report, including the number of comments for and against the application being incorrectly stated. Paul stated that the amenity value of his property would be compromised by this application, as the proposed dwelling would be 10 metres closer to his property than the existing property. Paul added that the proposed application would be overbearing, cause loss of light to his property and would have an impact on the general overlook of the setting. Paul stated that the proposed dwelling would interrupt the 45^o line within 5 meters of his dwelling which was contrary to R18 of the Borough Design Guide. Paul added that there were privacy concerns regarding the overlook from the proposed dwelling directly into the 1^st floor bedroom of his daughter’s bedroom, concerns of which had been raised with the child protection department. Paul stated that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) had approved the inclusion of the aforementioned bedroom window in 2012 and therefore it was acceptable. Paul concluded that the proposed application would be entirely unacceptable and contrary to CPO8.

Carl Ramsey, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Carl stated that both a CIL payment and a S106 agreement were applied to this application, and the dwelling would be used to accommodate family – some of whom had some health issues – allowing them to be close by. Carl added that they had worked closely with WBC’s planning department throughout the planning process, and a number of changes had been made to the application following feedback from neighbours. Carl stated that this plot had been moved further away from number 10 Victoria Road, and the proposals had received no objections from other neighbours, WBC departments of consultative authorities. Carl was of the opinion that number 10 Victoria Road had reduced their own amenity space when deciding on extending their property in 2012. Carl stated that he had removed an extremely large light blocking fern tree previously, which had allowed more light into both his property and number 10. Carl was of the opinion that the 1^st floor window at number 10 Victoria Road should never have been approved as it overlooked his property, and was likely only allowed due to the existence of the very large fern tree at the time.

John Halsall, Ward Member, prepared a statement regarding this application and in his absence it was read out by the Vice Chairman. John apologised to the Committee as he was unable to be present on the evening. John stated that he had listed this application on the grounds that it was controversial. John added that he was neither supporting the application nor objecting to it.

John stated that therefore it should be referred to Committee, so that all parties could see that the process was transparent and fair. John believed that the scheme could be improved so that it was not controversial should the applicant were willing. John referred the Committee to the comments made by the Parish Council. John was of the opinion that the introduction of a new entrance in this location was incompatible with the street scene in relation to highway safety, and should there be a single entrance to the whole site (the existing 8 Victoria Road site) the objection to the application would be withdrawn. John stated that should this application be approved, the Parish Council requested that Permitted Development Rights be withdrawn.

Simon Weeks queried whether there would be any additional overlook towards the window on the extension of number 10 Victoria Road as a result of the proposed dwelling. Simon also queried whether there would be any considerable light loss for number 10 Victoria Road as a result of the proposed development.  Simon Taylor, Case Officer, stated that it was unlikely that there would be any additional overlook on the side window of number 10 Victoria Road as a result of the proposed dwelling. Simon added that there would be some reduction in light towards number 10 Victoria Road, however this would mainly occur in secondary windows and there was therefore a lesser weighting given to light loss in these rooms.

RESOLVED That application number 191570 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 118 to 124, and subject to completion of a legal agreement (with the bold text on page 156 swapped with the bold text on page 118).