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 2No 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 9 to 42.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Peter Mathers, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Peter thanked the applicant’s architect for submitting revised proposals which were a clear improvement over previous versions, as a result of concerns raised by Members at their October Committee meeting. Peter commented that despite the revised plans, a number of concerns remained. Peter stated that his property was shown as being 8.2m high within the proposed elevations document, whereas the actual height of his property was 7.2m. Peter felt that this had allowed the architect to show number 162 to be the same height as number 164, and number 160 as lower than 162 which was false. Peter stated that number 162 was in fact lower than number 164, and the proposals would allow for number 160 to be higher than number 162, disrupting the downward slope of roof lines in line with the downward slope of the road. Peter was of the opinion that the architect had reduced the proposals from 6 bedrooms, to five bedrooms, and now to four bedrooms in an attempt to gain approval for the largest house possible, which Peter felt was an abuse of process and should warrant refusal. Peter stated that the Reading Road was a wide road and your eye was naturally drawn to one side of the road. On the even numbered side of the road, the average height of these houses was 7.36m, and the proposed dwelling would be over a meter higher than the average property height on this side of the road. Peter queried why the proposed property needed to be considerably higher than surrounding properties, given that the proposal was for a two-storey dwelling. If approved, Peter asked that the property be restricted a maximum height of 8.4m. Peter stated that the property was at risk of surface water flooding, and the applicant’s property had flooded 14 years prior. Peter asked that the Committee refuse the application, and encouraged the applicant to come back with a more reasonable proposal.

Peter Lindley-Hughes, architect, spoke in support of the application. Peter stated that the designs had been amended to take in to account the concerns of neighbouring properties, concerns raised at the previous Committee meeting, and to “de-risk” the scheme. Peter stated that the third floor internal level had been addressed, as had the issues relating to the windows, height and massing, whilst the garage had also been omitted in the front garden, and the dormer windows from the third floor were no longer proposed. Peter stated that he was disappointed that neighbouring objections remained despite positive email conversations. Peter added that the ridge height of number 162 was 4m higher than the existing bungalow, whilst number 158 was 1.3m higher. Peter stated that the proposed home would be 1m lower than number 162, and only 1.8m taller than number 158. Peter felt that the development of the neighbouring property, number 162, was acceptable at the time despite being an overbearing 4m taller than the neighbouring bungalow, and as such the development of number 160 was also acceptable as it was tailored to the changing need of larger family homes over time. Peter added that in his mind, the Committee needed to review whether the correct balance had been struck between suitable scale and mass aligned to planning policy whilst ensuring the future of the proposed home was fit for purpose.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Imogen stated that she was pleased to see that the loft conversion had been changed to only one room for storage purposes. Imogen added that her remaining concerns centred on the proposed property being large, whilst there appeared to be some dispute over the height of the proposal.

Sam Akhtar commented that the revised proposals seemed reasonable, and from examining the street scene the proposals would appear to fit in with other properties. Sam sought additional clarity regarding surface water flooding. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, confirmed that condition 4 had been amended and the applicant would be required to submit further details to ensure that issues relating to surface water were covered.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the drawing on agenda page 37 was accurate, and if it was not could the errors be enough to effect the street scene. Baldeep Pulahi confirmed that she was believed the drawing on agenda page 37 to be correct.

Pauline Jorgensen queried why roof storage required roof lights, and how the roof storage would be accessed. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that the roof lights to the front and rear remained, however the overall floor space was minimal. Justin added that the roof storage would be accessed by stairs.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether harm could be caused should the roof storage be used in an alternative way, for example as an office. Justin Turvey stated that the officer opinion was that harm would not be caused in such a use case.

Chris Bowring commented that from the site visit, it was very difficult to see more than one property at a time from the street.

Carl Doran queried whether the drainage condition was amended from the standard wording, and whether the proposed height could be conditioned to not exceed 8.4m. Baldeep Pulahi confirmed that condition 4 was amended following discussions with the Drainage officer, and the applicant could only build the proposed property up to the height within the approved plans, which was 8.4m.

RESOLVED That application number 212509 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 9 to 14.