Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey front/side extension, a two storey side and part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 no. dormer window, rear patio and changes to fenestration following demolition of existing detached garage. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Manprit Vig

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 145 to 182.

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

·         Additional changes to the originally approved scheme which were not referenced within the report;

·         Clarification that the case officer would verbally update the Committee regarding comments from Earley Town Council;

·         Officer responses to additional objections and concerns received after publication of the report.

Kieran Neumann, case officer, confirmed that comments received following Earley Town Council’s most recent Planning Committee largely mirrored comments made on 5 October 2022.

Tim Marsh, ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that ACER were objecting on grounds of inappropriate mass, built form, materials and character of the area. Tim added that the application was detrimental to the amenity of adjacent land users. Tim felt that the application was contrary to CP3, and was being considered as a retrospective due to the development exceeding the constraints of previously approved plans. Tim commented on some of the counterpoints made by officers within the Supplementary Planning Agenda in response to resident comments. Tim felt that non-matching bricks would not weather and blend over time as bricks were designed to retain their appearance. Tim was of the opinion that the neighbouring resident’s kitchen could be seen through the dormer which created a privacy issue. Tim stated that the protrusion of a 3m high wall which extended almost 1m cast a sun shadow over the rear terrace of number 19, which produced a loss of amenity. The 45 degree diagram supplied showed ambient light levels rather than direct sunlight, which was the key issue for number 19 due to the direction of sun travel which came from number 17. Tim questioned why the noise from fans was not a planning issue, when for other applications noise was a consideration, for example delivery vehicles. Tim stated that the dormer was applied for under permitted development, which if now null and void would have to be considered against Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) standards. Tim added that there were precedents for such dormers being refused by WBC which distorted the roof lines, including one in Byron Road. Tim quoted comments made by a planning officer for one such refusal which described a similar dormer as bulky and intrusive which would detract from the established character of the area. Tim asked that the application be judged against CP3 and be refused.

Manprit Vig, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Manprit stated that he had worked as a Civil Servant for over 20 years, and he and his family were hard workers and law-abiding citizens. Manprit stated that he always intended to follow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71