Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for proposed single storey detached outbuilding with roof lantern to the eastern boundary (Retrospective).

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Brant

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 21 to 38.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included an additional condition in relation to obscure glazing.

Charles Margetts, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Charles stated that whilst members were supposed to judge applications on an individual basis, it was important to understand previous applications and the history of the site. Charles stated that there had been 10 certificates for change of use on this site since 1997, 8 refused planning applications, 7 applications for housing including a number taken to appeal, and 20 enforcement cases since 1998. Charles added that commercial waste had been dumped on the site for 25 years, whilst green waste had also been dumped and burned. Charles stated that over 200 scrap cars had been stored on the site recently, whilst residents had shown videos of people accessing the site to strip parts from the scrap cars. Charles felt that this information would help the Committee to understand the history of the site, and noted that it was in the countryside and outside of the settlement boundary and 2010 Local Plan. Charles added that the site was also outside of the settlement boundary within the Draft Local Plan Update, and was not included in the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan. Due to past behaviours, Charles felt that trust had completely broken down between residents and the applicant, and raised concerns that further buildings could be placed on the site in future without planning permission. Charles felt that the application should be refused, to make it clear that planning policies were there for a reason and should be adhered to.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he appreciated the strength of feeling raised by Charles Margetts on behalf of local residents. Andrew commented that history of enforcement was not a material planning consideration. Andrew queried what weight was applied to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and suggested a possible amendment to conditions to require a blind to the rooflight to stop upward light spillage to protect roosting bats.

John Kaiser queried whether this application was submitted as a result of negotiations following the enforcement case, and sought officer comment as to what an Inspector’s view might be if this application was refused and taken to appeal by the applicant. Cameron Young, case officer, confirmed that the application had been submitted following engagement with the enforcement process. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that Council’s should act proportionally with regards to planning controls, and planning applications should be entertained where there was the possibility of approval being granted. Brian added that if the application was refused there was the chance that the applicant could appeal the decision, and should that appeal be allowed Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) could have less control over conditions and informatives. Brian stated that such applications should look to regularise use where possible, via a proportional approach.

David Cornish welcomed the comment within the Supplementary Planning Agenda that the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan now carried moderate weight. David added that whilst he agreed with the sentiment of Charles Margetts’ speech, the Parish Council had not objected to this application, and similar applications had been approved within Finchampstead. As such, David felt that a consistent approach needed to be applied to this application as had been applied to other similar applications.

Wayne Smith commented that he sympathised with the comments raised by Charles Margetts, however he felt that this application mostly fell under permitted development. Wayne queried if an additional condition could be added, stating that the development was not a separate dwelling and was ancillary to the main use of the property.

In response to requests for officer comment on the two potential amended or additional conditions, Brian Conlon stated that the proposed condition relating to the development being ancillary to the existing property was reasonable and met the planning tests. With regards to the proposed amendment to conditions to require a blind to be fitted on the roof light, Brian advised that the internal fixtures of the building did not constitute development and such a condition would not meet the planning tests.

Wayne Smith proposed an additional condition, stating that the development was not a separate dwelling and was ancillary to the main use of the property. This was seconded by David Cornish, carried, and added to the list of conditions.

John Kaiser was of the opinion that the national planning and enforcement rules left the Committee with little option but to approve such applications.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation, including the additional condition contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda and the additional condition as resolved by the Committee. This was seconded by David Cornish.

RESOLVED That application number 222138 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 32, additional condition contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda relating to obscure glazing, and additional condition relating to the development being ancillary to the main use of the property as resolved by the Committee.