Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey front/side extension, a two storey side and part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 no. dormer window, rear patio and changes to fenestration following demolition of existing detached garage. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Manprit Vig

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 145 to 182.

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

·         Additional changes to the originally approved scheme which were not referenced within the report;

·         Clarification that the case officer would verbally update the Committee regarding comments from Earley Town Council;

·         Officer responses to additional objections and concerns received after publication of the report.

Kieran Neumann, case officer, confirmed that comments received following Earley Town Council’s most recent Planning Committee largely mirrored comments made on 5 October 2022.

Tim Marsh, ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that ACER were objecting on grounds of inappropriate mass, built form, materials and character of the area. Tim added that the application was detrimental to the amenity of adjacent land users. Tim felt that the application was contrary to CP3, and was being considered as a retrospective due to the development exceeding the constraints of previously approved plans. Tim commented on some of the counterpoints made by officers within the Supplementary Planning Agenda in response to resident comments. Tim felt that non-matching bricks would not weather and blend over time as bricks were designed to retain their appearance. Tim was of the opinion that the neighbouring resident’s kitchen could be seen through the dormer which created a privacy issue. Tim stated that the protrusion of a 3m high wall which extended almost 1m cast a sun shadow over the rear terrace of number 19, which produced a loss of amenity. The 45 degree diagram supplied showed ambient light levels rather than direct sunlight, which was the key issue for number 19 due to the direction of sun travel which came from number 17. Tim questioned why the noise from fans was not a planning issue, when for other applications noise was a consideration, for example delivery vehicles. Tim stated that the dormer was applied for under permitted development, which if now null and void would have to be considered against Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) standards. Tim added that there were precedents for such dormers being refused by WBC which distorted the roof lines, including one in Byron Road. Tim quoted comments made by a planning officer for one such refusal which described a similar dormer as bulky and intrusive which would detract from the established character of the area. Tim asked that the application be judged against CP3 and be refused.

Manprit Vig, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Manprit stated that he had worked as a Civil Servant for over 20 years, and he and his family were hard workers and law-abiding citizens. Manprit stated that he always intended to follow the correct rules and procedures for this application, and apologised for the minor mistakes which had occurred. Manprit added that he was at the mercy of the architect and builders during the construction process, and they had begun this project to facilitate their elderly parents to live with them as they did not want to burden WBC social care. Manprit stated that the extra space would also offer up the future opportunity to provide foster care. Manprit commented that he had carried out everything that was requested of him in regards to making the build lawful, whilst the structure currently standing was in accordance with the originally granted permission. Manprit felt that the planning officer had been tough but fair, and requested that the application be approved.

Andy Croy, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Andy stated that he had visited number 19 to understand the context of the site, as there had been a history of the submitted plans not reflecting the actual built form. Andy recommended that the application be deferred to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit. Andy stated that the living area of number 19 was primarily impacted by the proposed extension in addition to the sun deck of number 19 which now sat in shade.

Andrew Mickleburgh felt that it would be very difficult to precisely say which part of the development was causing adverse impacts, and it would be difficult for anyone to separate out the impacts on number 19 of the component parts of the various changes to planning applications. Andrew felt that a site visit would be unlikely to assist in this regard, and as such felt unable to support a deferral.

Wayne Smith commented that he could not remember a time where so many retrospective planning applications were considered by the Committee, which created additional work and costs for the Council. Wayne sympathised with the applicant as they were reliant on the builders and architect to carry out the work. Wayne was of the opinion that the applicant was attempting to replicate the works previously carried out to the neighbouring property, and as such the application in front of the Committee was looking at the departure from the original application and the inception of a dormer window. Wayne felt that he could not support deferral for a site visit.

Al Neal stated that he had taken on board all of the comments made by public speakers, and was of the opinion that the roof form at the front of the property was completely out of keeping with the character of the area.

John Kaiser commented that the Planning Committee did not ‘rubber stamp’ planning applications, and instead had to use their judgement when considering if applications met planning policies and guidance. John Kaiser sought clarity regarding the Parish Councils comments that planning rules were not applied to previous applications, and queried if this application would resolve the breach in conditions. Kieran Neumann stated that the main issue was the lack of a measurement on the two-storey rear extension, which was clearly shown on the plan. Kieran stated that he had visited the site three times, including twice with an enforcement officer, and felt that this proposal was acceptable.

David Cornish commented that whilst the aesthetic of proposal was not one he would commission, this was not a planning consideration and as such he was minded to support the application.

David Cornish proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

RESOLVED That application number 222170 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda page 155.