Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full planning application for the use of existing side extension as an independent dwelling (retrospective).

Applicant: Mr A Hussain.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 119 to 132.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included clarification that pages 129 to 132 were duplicate plans for a different application.

Rosemary Cook, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Rosemary stated that the property was originally a small bungalow which had been developed in to a very large house. Rosemary added that the original annex was intended to be a granny annex however neighbours had stated that it was never used as such and was used as a second dwelling and rented out to tenants. Rosemary stated that there were frontage concerns and Earley Town Council would like to see soft vegetation at the front of the property. Rosemary was of the opinion that this was a concerning application due to the order in which it had come about.

Tim Marsh, Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that there was no greenery towards the front of the property, and the brick did not match between the original property and the subsequent annex. Tim felt that the property was out of keeping with the character of the area. Tim was of the opinion that there had been planning breaches related to this property which had subsequently encouraged the owner to apply for retrospective planning permission to turn the property into two separate dwellings. Tim stated that there was a need for soft vegetation and planting outside of the annex.

Brenda Cutler, Resident, spoke in objection to the application. Brenda stated that the annex was a three bedroom property which was being rented out to tenants, and added that there was a further extension towards the other side of the property. Brenda outlined that there was no vegetation or greenery towards the front of the property and the property was out of keeping with the street scene.

Adlan Hussain, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Adlan stated that he had purchased the property in a dilapidated state for himself, his wife and family and parents. Adlan added that both parents were now ill and were in need of specialist care which he could no longer provide in a home environment. Adlan stated that his wife’s cousin had lived in the annex for a period of time, and had subsequently left. Adlan outlined that this application intended to make no changes to the external portion of the property and there was sufficient parking for both the annex and the original dwelling to function as separate dwellings.  Adlan stated that he had tried to procure the same bricks as used on the original dwelling, however that particular brand were no longer in production and he subsequently found as similar a colour as possible. Adlan felt that the application was in keeping with national planning policies and parking standards.

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that the original plans were for a 1 bedroom annex, however it was used as a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. Shirley stated that the original planning permission explicitly stated that the annex was not to be used as an independent dwelling, and felt that the applicant had made no attempt to procure similar coloured bricks or to retain soft vegetation or planting. Shirley was of the opinion that this application showed a cynical disregard for planning policy.

Simon Weeks reminded the Committee that it was not an offence to submit a retrospective planning application and the application needed to be considered thoroughly by the Committee.

A number of Members queried why ongoing enforcement issues had not been included within the report. Jeanette Davey, Case Officer, stated that these issues were likely confidential and routinely only official enforcement notices were reported.

Carl Doran queried whether the property was originally built as a single dwelling and sought clarification regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Jeanette Davey stated that the property was built as an annex with a link between the two properties, this being a glass door. Jeanette added that should the application be approved, there would be no impact on the surrounding area compared to what was originally approved and built.  Jeanette stated that, following a second site visit expressly for the purposes of checking the potential for a CIL charge, that the need for a payment now seemed less likely but this was to be confirmed by the relevant officers of the Council.

Stephen Conway queried why Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) were now prepared to allow the property to operate as two independent dwellings when the S106 agreement previously strictly prohibited this function. Marcia Head, Development Management team Leader, stated that the S106 agreement was used to ensure that WBC retained control in this situation. Marcia added that in any given year, approximately six applications to vary a S106 agreement were received.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that to many people passing by the property, they would assume that it was a single dwelling. Andrew asked whether soft landscaping and planting could be undertaken between the two dwellings. Marcia Head stated that an informative requesting soft landscaping could be included, however this would not be enforceable.

Chris Bowring queried whether approving this application would nullify any potential retrospective enforcement action. Jeanette Davey stated that this would not be the case, and the application before the Committee was only to change the dwelling into two separate dwellings going forwards.

Simon Weeks commented that under the current conditions, the annex could be used by four young family members for example, each with a car, which could have the same impact as what this application was seeking permission for.

Pauline Jorgensen asked how the tarmacked parking outside the front of the dwelling was originally approved. Jeanette Davey stated that these details, including landscaping, were absent from the originally approved application.

A number of Members commented that the property was out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

A number of Members were of the opinion that this application would set a precedent to apply for planning permission for an annex, and subsequently apply for permission to have two separate dwellings. Carl Doran moved an alternative motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that the application was contrary to TB06, TB21 and the original S106 agreement, and would damage the character of the area by means of creating two separate dwellings. This was seconded by Gary Cowan and upon being put to a vote the motion failed.

RESOLVED That application 191090 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 119 to 120, with additional amendments altering the wording of the CIL informative (No 2) from ‘The development hereby permitted is liable to pay…’ to ‘The development hereby permitted may be liable to pay…’.