Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a 2no.storey plus loft level dwelling with an integrated garage to include 12No roof lights following the demolition of existing bungalow including alterations to the vehicular/pedestrian entrance.

Applicant: G Lupton

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 221 to 244.

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

·           Reference to three additional neighbour comments received after the report was submitted for the agenda;

·           Amended condition 4.

Imogen Shepherd-Dubey, on behalf of Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Imogen stated that the proposals were for a large three-storey house including five bedrooms. Imogen added that the ridge height of the proposals would be 2.5m higher than that of the adjacent properties. Imogen stated that the other properties in the area were all two-storey family homes with no larger buildings in sight. Imogen stated that the proposals were downhill from neighbouring buildings, and the diagrams provided did not represent the street scene adequately. Imogen suggested that Members may wish to visit the street to get a true sense of the street scene and the character of the area. Imogen stated that the Town Council was grateful for the removal of the external garage and the rear dormer window proposals, however the third floor windows and the third floor useable space remained. Imogen was of the opinion that the height and massing of the proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding character of the area. Imogen was of the opinion that the proposals did not meet CP3a of the core strategy, and she did not want this application to set a precedent for larger properties of this nature outside of town centre settings.

Peter Mathers, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Peter stated that the existing bungalow at 160 Reading Road was not much smaller than the two-storey house situated at number 158 Reading Road. Peter stated that the proposal was for a property which was substantially higher than both numbers 158 and 162 Reading Road, and would have an overbearing nature that would disrupt the downward trajectory of the houses which followed the slope of the road. Peter stated that an officer report for a pre-application care home on the site address last year stated concerns relating to the centre section of the building being of three-storeys in height and being considerably higher than existing properties. Peter stated that this application would allow a building of a similar height, and therefore approval would be inconsistent with the approach taken last year. Peter stated that the proposals included eight roof lights and two small round windows in the roof which he felt was excessive. Peter raised concerns that the storage areas within the proposed third-storey may be used as bedrooms in future. Peter asked that the number of roof lights be reduced, and removed completely from side elevations, with the remaining roof lights to be obscured glass. Peter was of the opinion that the applicant had failed to provide examples of similar properties in the area in terms of height and the amount of glazing in the roof, and this was because these properties did not exist. Peter stated that the vast majority of properties in the area were of two-storey height. Peter welcomed redevelopment of the existing bungalow as it was in a state of disrepair, however the proposed application was overdevelopment in his view.

Peter Lindley Hughes, agent, spoke in support of the application. Peter stated that the proposal was for a sympathetic in-keeping scheme of high quality, to replace the 1960’s existing dwelling which no longer served the needs of the existing family and was in desperate need of replacement. Peter stated that the applicant had collaborated with the local planning authority to ensure that the scheme was suitable in terms of material matters and local planning policy. Peter stated that the rear dormer windows had been removed via updated plans, which were the main issue for the massing and overlooking. Peter stated that in the absence of a garage, the parking proposals had been incorporated within the dwelling massing. Peter added that the proposals were for a three-storey dwelling with two-storey massing. Peter stated that following further consultation, no additional material matters were raised for consideration and the applicant was content that the proposals were suitable for the location. Peter stated that the Environment Agency classified this as flood zone risk 1, which was the lowest classification of at risk areas, and a flood risk assessment had been carried out and had indicated that no level of mitigation solely on the applicant’s property would not be able to remedy the wider issues within the area. Peter stated that during the detailed design phase, additional surface water flood mitigation measures were likely to be introduced which could also have benefits for neighbouring properties. Peter was of the opinion that the design was of high quality whilst fitting in with the character of the area, and would meet the needs of the applicant whilst providing surface water mitigation measures.

Rachel Bishop-Firth, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Rachel stated that whilst she supported the redevelopment of this site to replace the existing bungalow, she was concerned that the current proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding area. Rachel stated that the buildings on this stretch of the Reading Road were all one and two storey homes, and whilst some properties have had a loft conversion this had mainly occurred where the existing property was a bungalow. Rachel stated that this was not an area where three storey homes were being built. Rachel stated that the proposals would be 2.5m higher than the neighbouring dwellings, which would be out of keeping with other homes and would set a dangerous precedent for the area. Rachel added that the blocky design of the house added to the bulk of the proposed development, which would be out of character with other properties in the area. Rachel urged the Committee to refuse this application.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey was of the opinion that the proposal was three-storeys and was out of keeping with the character of the area.

Stephen Conway commented that the proposals would be substantially higher than neighbouring properties, and felt that a site visit would be beneficial for Members to get a sense of the potential relationship. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that he had visited the site and the dwellings were set back with a slope through the site, and the proposals were not felt to be excessive in terms of height relative to other properties.

Andrew Mickleburgh was of the opinion that there was no substitute for a site visit to get a better sense of the street scene and potential relationship between the dwellings. Andrew raised concerns that the proposed building works may create additional flood risk, queried whether there were any details regarding the increase in massing, and commented that the increase in glazing of the roof space would have an impact on the character of the area. Simon Taylor commented that the site sat in a one in 100 year surface flood risk zone, and sustainable drainage details would ensure that there was no adverse impact on surface flood risk compared to the current situation. Simon added that there would be some overshadowing, however this would not be sufficient to warrant refusal and the proposals met the 45 degree line test. Simon stated that the proposals would be higher than most properties on the street however this was not felt to be unacceptable. Simon stated that massing and volume were considerations within a countryside setting, and as this application was in an urban setting and it met the front, rear, and side guidelines the proposals were considered acceptable and policy compliant.

Carl Doran raised concerns relating to the height of the proposal, and worried that this would set a precedent for future applications if approved. Carl queried why this application was being considered so quickly after a small consultation period, and queried whether there was any way that the storage areas would remain as such in future as opposed to being used as a bedroom space. Simon Taylor stated that the application had been re-consulted, which was not necessary however it allowed for neighbours to view and consider proposed changes to the application. Simon added that the consultation ended on the agenda publication date, and the applicant would have had to wait a further month prior to consideration of their application whilst no additional issues had been raised as part of the re-consultation. Simon stated that the 1.5m high windows were considered as acceptable and the extent of overlooking had been sufficiently minimised.

Angus Ross was of the opinion that the Committee were required to balance the inevitable redevelopment of the street scene to meet the current needs of residents against any potential harm.

Sam Akhtar stated his concerns in relation to surface water issues as a result of development, overlooking issues as a result of increased glazing, height of the proposed dwelling in comparison to neighbouring properties, and the change to the street scene that this application would cause.

Stephen Conway commented that the Committee may have differences of opinion to officers when subjective matters were being considered.

Stephen Conway proposed that the item be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken to consider the proposed development’s relationship with neighbouring properties and the overall street scene. This proposal was seconded by Chris Bowring and upon being put to the vote the proposal was carried.

RESOLVED That application number 212509 be deferred, to allow a site visit to be undertaken to consider the proposed development’s relationship with neighbouring properties and the overall street scene.