Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling (Use Class C3) with access, layout and scale to be determined.

Applicant: Mr David Parsons

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 129 to 158.

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.

Andrew Beard, agent, spoke in support of the application. Andrew stated that there was a previous application for two houses on this site, which was withdrawn in order to bring forward the current proposals which were in keeping with the character of the area, in line with policies and constituted a sustainable development. Andrew added that the proposals retained the frontage landscaping and would remove the untidy gap currently in place. Andrew stated that the proposals would not impact on the amenity lines of adjacent properties, and provided 3 car parking spaces which was fully compliant with policy. Andrew stated that there was existing planning permission for a hall to the rear of the property, where the car parking spaces would be located, and added that the house and the hall could coexist. Andrew stated that in his opinion, there were no grounds to refuse the application.

Tim Marsh, on behalf of ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that the application was for a class 3 dwelling, with four bedrooms and a reasonable expectation of four cars, however only three parking spaces were provided. Tim stated that one third of the mass on number 20 Pitts lane was in front of the prevailing building line, and therefore this two storey building would protrude out and be very noticeable especially at the bend in the road. Tim added that the location problem was further compounded via the relationship with number 18, as the centre line for number 18 was set behind the rear wall of number 20 and would dominate the garden, and the owner of number 18 had complained that this would result in a loss of light for his garden. Tim stated that a possible solution would be to align the front of number 20 with the road, and adopt sloping hip-bend rooves, which would both maintain the building line and reduce the dominance of number 18 by number 20. Tim was of the opinion that the proposals were not satisfactory in their current form, and the Borough Design Guide stated that development should respond appropriately to the existing character and identity of the area and relate well to neighbours. Tim concluded by stating that the application did not fit in with its surroundings, and should be refused.

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, provided a statement in objection to the application which was read out by the Vice Chairman in the Chair. Shirley stated that the existing dwellings in Pitts Lane were set back from the road, creating an open environment. Shirley added that although a building line may not exist, there was a convention which should be followed. Shirley was of the opinion that the proposed dwelling would dominate the street scene, particularly when approaching from the east. Shirley stated that the gable-ended roof end on the proposed dwelling would add to the overbearing effect on the street scene and for the residents of number 18 Pitts Lane. Shirley stated that her main concern related to the parking arrangements, as only three spaces were proposed when potentially six car owners could live in the property. Shirley added that there was no proposed visitor parking, and in the absence of an alternative visitors would park on grass verges resulting in irreparable damage to the verges as seen in other areas. Shirley requested that the Committee sought a condition requiring the owner to assume responsibility for parking, either on the access road or the car park of the rear hall.

Carl Doran sought clarification that the provision of three car parking spaces was policy compliant, queried whether there was a parking policy for HMOs in Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC) standards, and queried whether the permission granted for additional parking at the hall to the rear of the property was required to be implemented in order to provide the three car parking spaces for the proposed property. Senjuti Manna confirmed that the proposals were for a four bedroom family home, and the provision of three car parking spaces was compliant for this application. Senjuti added that the application had to be determined based on the proposals submitted. Senjuti stated that the three parking spaces would be provided, regardless of whether the permission for additional spaces for the hall at the rear were implements. Roger Johnson, Senior Assistant Engineer (Highways), confirmed that three parking spaces were policy compliant for a four bedroom dwelling, and it was likely that any visitor parking could be accommodated adjacent to the house rather than along the road.

Carl Doran queried whether the property had a large garden and large amenity space. Senjuti Manna confirmed that the rear garden was policy compliant, and the front garden had a feeling of openness and did not have a policy associated with it. Senjuti added that the openness of the area would not be affected by the proposal.

Andrew Mickleburgh sought confirmation as to which C3 categories was being applied, queried what the relationship was between the house and the church in legal terms, asked for confirmation that the hedge at the front of the proposed property would be retained and the development would not reduce the depth of the grass verge, and asked for clarification with regards to whether the proposal was in keeping with the street scene given the proposed front garden was much smaller than those of existing properties. Senjuti Manna stated that the proposal had been considered as a single family dwelling consisting of four bedrooms. Senjuti added that the proposed house and the hall were under separate ownership, meaning that the parking at the rear would still be provided regardless of whether the church allowed additional parking at the rear. In addition, the property had a 5m wide front access road which could provide additional parking if required. Senjuti confirmed that a landscaping condition was already included to protect the hedge at the front, and the applicant had confirmed that the hedge would be retained. It was acknowledged that the front garden was not as large as seen at neighbouring properties, however due to the large grass verge at the front of the property the overall feeling of openness would be retained.

Gary Cowan commented that as the proposal was policy compliant in terms of parking, it was difficult to argue this particular issue. Gary added that HMO parking should be looked at in future. Gary stated that the proposal was slightly at odds with the street scene, but on balance he was minded to vote to approve the application.

RESOLVED That application number 201370 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 130 to 135.