Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the erection of a 1No bed two storey dwelling following demolition of the existing workshop.

Applicant: Mr Ray Cook

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 81 to 112.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Omission of Condition 17;

·           Minor amendment of Condition 20;

·           Addition of Condition 21;

·           Addition of Condition 22;

·           Comment from Twyford Parish Council, objecting to the proposals and supporting the residents’ viewpoints;

·           Correction to paragraph 5.

Selena Durrant, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Selena stated that the application was of modern design, which was out of keeping with the rest of the properties within the conservation area. Selena stated that her home was built in 1901 and retained its original character. Selena added that the proposals did nothing to enhance the conservation area, and mixed-use parking was at a premium in the area. Selena was of the opinion that the designs were unsympathetic to the character of the street scene, and three vehicles regularly parked alongside the existing garages. As parking was already a daily issue, the proposals would only create more issues. Selena stated that the proposals would overlook into her property, in addition to creating additional noise to the rear of the property. Selena added that an elderly neighbour would be affected by additional noise and privacy concerns. Selena asked that the Committee conduct a site visit, in order to gain a better understanding of privacy concerns and develop a better picture of the character of the existing conservation area.

Thomas Rumble, agent, spoke in support of the application. Thomas stated that the existing site was in a dilapidated state and was in need of redevelopment. Thomas added that the proposals were for a new one bedroom dwelling which followed the design of a previous appeal decision. The Inspector had commented that the current site negatively affected the conservation area due to its dilapidated state. Thomas stated that the site was situated within a highly sustainable area, and the new property designs were more desirable than the existing property. Thomas added that the Inspector had refused the previous appeal on two grounds (timber cladding, and the 1^st floor infringing on the adjacent dwelling), both of which had been remedied within the current application proposals. Thomas stated that the proposals furthered development on brownfield land. Thomas added that the plans allowed for a positive active frontage, with a contemporary dwelling design situated within a sustainable area.

Lindsay Ferris, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Lindsay stated that the proposals were totally out of character with the Twyford conservation area. Lindsay stated that the Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) conservation Officer had raised an objection to the proposals. Lindsay stated that the site was cramped and overlooked neighbouring properties. Lindsay stated that acceptance of the proposed structure could break down the character of the area. Lindsay saw no reason that WBC should accept the proposals in their current form. Lindsay stated that the Inspector’s comment regarding that the proposals were better than the existing were unusual for an Inspector, as he was not commenting on a planning consideration. Lindsay asked that the Committee refused the proposals.

Stephen Conway commented that the issue with this application was that the Inspector had made some very clear conclusions regarding the designs, and had in essence invited the applicant to re-apply with suggested amendments. Stephen added that the WBC conservation officer had raised a very strong objection to the application, and the officers recommendation was very much ‘on-balance’. Stephen commented that parking spaces were very limited in this area, and there would be significant overlook which would be contrary to the Borough Design Guide. Stephen queried whether the application was compatible with the conservation area status, and suggested the Committee conduct a site visit to assess the street scene.

Chris Bowring queried how the Committee should weigh up the conservation officer’s objection against the Inspector’s findings. Justin Turvey, Team Manager (Development & Regeneration), stated that officers had refused three similar designs, however the Inspector had made some very positive comments regarding the design of this application subject to amendments. As the Inspector gave the applicant clear guidance, which was followed, the Inspectors judgements should be viewed as the main consideration.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether an inspector would overturn a previous Inspector’s decision, and was of the opinion that the proposals were not acceptable. Justin Turvey stated that this was unlikely unless there had been a material change. Government guidance stated that it would be unreasonable behaviour to ignore the advice of an Inspector, which would result in costs being awarded against WBC.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated his support for a site visit, and was of the opinion that the large expanse of front facing glazing was out of character with the surrounding conservation area.

Gary Cowan was of the opinion that the designs were wholly out of character with the surrounding conservation area, and the proposals would destroy the character of the street scene. Gary was of the opinion that the ‘on balance’ decision should have been to refuse the application.

Angus Ross stated that a site visit would give WBC a stronger case, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application at a later date.

Malcolm Richards queried whether the 20^th March expiry would present an issue should this item be deferred for a site visit. Justin Turvey stated that it would be reasonable to go beyond the expiry date should Members request a site visit.

Carl Doran asked for clarification of the purpose of a conservation area, and commented that the scheme was out of keeping with the character of the conservation area. Justin Turvey stated that a conservation area did not mean that there could be no further development, however there was a higher threshold when assessing planning applications. Justin added that the Inspector would have taken these considerations into account.

Carl Doran asked for clarification as to whether the amenity spaces were below standard. Natalie Jarman, case officer, confirmed the amenity spaces to be 27m²,which were under standard.

Chris Bowring commented that the Inspector had made a very strong judgment, and it was likely that this would be allowed at appeal should the Committee be minded to refuse the application.

Stephen Conway commented that a site visit was very important, as it would allow Members an opportunity to assess the character of the conservation area. Stephen added that any new build within this area should seek sot preserve or enhance the conservation area.

Angus Ross commented that a site visit would allow the Committee to be more informed about any potential reasons for refusal, should this be how the Committee was minded at a later date.

Stephen Conway proposed that this item be deferred, in order to allow for a Member site visit to be conducted to assess the relationship of the proposed dwelling to the existing dwellings, and assess whether the proposed dwelling was appropriate for a conservation area. This proposal was seconded and carried.

RESOLVED That application number 192280 be deferred, in order to allow for a Members site visit to be undertaken for the reasons listed above.