Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

(Councillor Cornish left the meeting for this item, which was chaired by Councillor Mickleburgh)

Proposal: Full application for the erection of a detached dwelling and outbuilding following demolition of the existing property

Applicant: Mr C Lucanu

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 13 to 52.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·       An additional representation from 11 Avery Close.

·       Clarification regarding the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan.

·       A plan demonstrating the 45-degree test for loss of light.

All Members excepting Councillors Cornish and Skuse had attended a site visit.

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He referred to the validity and status of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan and commented that it could be seen as the most uptodate planning policy for the area.  He commented that he could not find reference in the report to the use of the Neighbourhood Development Plan by the Officer in making their recommendation, despite its specific policy around three storey buildings.   Finchampstead Parish Council had made reference to the Plan in their submission and had indicated that the application was contrary to elements of it.  Roger Marshallsay felt that due process had not been applied and that the application should be refused.

Pauline Grainger, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She felt that a building of the proposed mass, scale and design would be incongruous with the surrounding area of Nine Mile Ride and would not enhance the street scene which consisted of brick built bungalows and chalet bungalows.  She noted that the roof line was approximately 1.79m higher than the existing bungalow, which was higher than the adjacent and other surrounding properties.  Pauline Grainger highlighted the potential loss of shrubs and trees along the common boundary of 204 and 206 Nine Mile Ride, which she believed would be detrimental to the street scene.  The proposed three storey building would sit alongside a neighbouring single storey building and would impact on the light of its eastern elevation.  She stated that despite the 45 degree light test, the height change from one storey to three storeys would take light from the ground floor windows on the east side.  The dormer windows on the rear, because of the increasing height, would lead to a loss of privacy in her garden.  In addition, Pauline Grainger emphasised that the application contravened policies D1 and D2 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan.  She indicated that she was not against redevelopment of the site, but had not anticipated an application of the scale, mass, height, and design, proposed.  She suggested that a significant reduction in the height, replacing dormer windows with roof lights and installing obscure glazing in side elevation windows would make the proposal more acceptable and more in line with CP3.

Councillor Rebecca Margetts, ward member, spoke in objection to the application.  She highlighted that a single storey bungalow would be replaced by a three storey dwelling.  The surrounding properties were a maximum of two storeys or were chalet style bungalows.   She emphasised that D1 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan stated that building heights should reflect the character and appearance of the parish, which this proposal did not.  It also stated that the development of three storey housing would generally only be supported within the area of the Strategic Development Location.  Policy D2 outlined the need for the preservation of the rural character of the parish.  She was of the opinion that the application would not deliver enhancements to the landscape character.  Policy D3 stated that although innovation and design was encouraged, this needed to be sympathetic with, and complement existing styles.  Councillor Margetts reemphasised that the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan had been adopted and was the most uptodate planning policy for the Finchampstead area.

Councillor Neal queried why there was not a condition around obscured glazing on the western and eastern elevations on the second floor windows.  Marcus Watts, case officer, commented that there was one side facing window on each elevation of the first floor and both of these served ensuite bathrooms.  As it was not considered a habitable room but a service room, there was more flexibility as to whether obscure glazing was required or not.  Officers had considered obscuring the windows by condition to be unnecessary.  The Operational Lead – Development Management added that it was indicated as being obscured on the elevational drawings.

In response to a question from Councillor Neal regarding policy D1 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan, the case officer indicated that the officer report referred to two policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.  Whilst D1 was not explicitly referenced, its objectives were outlined and D2 was explicitly referred to.  The policies had both been taken into consideration.  A balance had been undertaken between these policies and those of Wokingham Borough Council, namely CP3 of the Core Strategy, which indicated that the bulk and scale needed to be appropriate.  Whilst technically the proposal could be viewed as three storeys of development, because it visually appeared as a two and a half storey dwelling with the third within the roof, similar to other examples in the area, and the height being considered appropriate, on balance it had been considered acceptable.  Whilst the proposal did not meet D1 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, this conflict had been balanced with the merits of the scheme and how it complied with other policies.

Councillor Smith commented that he was sympathetic to the Finchampstead community who had spent some time developing the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and the fact that the application did not meet several of the policies within this Plan.  He felt that the Committee was being asked to balance between D1 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan and CP3 of the WBC Planning Policy. 

Councillor Sheperd-Dubey commented that it looked to be a two storey building from the plan.  She questioned whether the Neighbourhood Development Plan would not permit the installation of dormer windows in a loft.  The Operational Lead – Development Management clarified that the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan detailed that three storey dwellings were only normally acceptable in specific designated areas.  Applications had to be considered in accordance with the Development Plan unless there were material considerations which indicated otherwise.  When weighing up, officers would consider whether any harm was sufficient to warrant recommending refusal, or not.  In order for a recommendation for refusal to be given, where any harm lay, for example, bulk, mass, scale, and impact on the character of the area, had to be identified.

Councillor Skuse asked whether an application for a two storey property to build a loft conversion would be considered unacceptable.  The Operational Lead – Development Management indicated that it would be a question of the level of harm.  There were flexibilities in the Plan to accommodate acceptable proposals but also to resist unacceptable proposals.

With regards to policy D2 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan, Councillor Mickleburgh questioned whether maintaining the separation of settlements applied for the proposal.  He was informed that this did not apply, and that, that part of the policy referred to clusters of houses in the countryside and maintaining a separation between those and other smaller settlements.  Councillor Mickleburgh questioned whether complementing the relevant landscape characteristics was the street scene and was informed that it was.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey referred to a nearby large two storey building (208 Nine Mile Ride).  The case officer indicated that the proposal was 20-30cm above that building.  In terms of potential overlooking the arrangement at the building identified by Councillor Shepherd-Dubey was not uncommon in a suburban area.  This was another reason why the height of the proposed building including having the dormer at the rear, had been considered acceptable.  It was thought that no adverse overlooking would be introduced, and it was not out of character.  It was confirmed that 208 Nine Mile Ride was 8.1m in height and the maximum height of the proposed dwelling was 8.55m.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked how much the footprint of the site would change should the application be approved.  The case officer explained that the increase in footprint had been deemed acceptable because the two to three storey element was just above the existing bungalow, and where it would be expanded to the side and rear, it would continue to be single storey only.

Councillor Smith questioned what the volume increase of the proposal would be against the existing bungalow.  The Operational Lead – Development Management clarified that volume was not calculated for domestic extensions, replacements, alterations, or replacement dwellings within established settlements.  Any increase in footprint or volume was considered not based on what was there, but on whether what was being proposed caused an unacceptable relationship.  The plot was 52m and the replacement dwelling had a depth of 16m.

Councillor Smith recommended that application 231643 be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan and specifically policies D1 and D2, and the bulk, scale and mass of the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Munro. 

RESOLVED:  That application 231643 be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan and specifically policies D1 and D2, and the bulk, scale and mass of the application. 

(At this point in the meeting, Councillor Cornish returned to the meeting).