Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

(Councillor Cornish left the meeting for this item, which was chaired by Councillor Mickleburgh)

Proposal: Full application for the erection of a detached dwelling and outbuilding following demolition of the existing property

Applicant: Mr C Lucanu

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 147 to 180.

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

·      To note that a revised parking layout had been received at a late stage. This had been to accommodate the request from the Highways Officer for increased parking and turning in order for the front driveway to accommodate three vehicles.  The scale of this alteration had not warranted a re-consultation of the application. 

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He indicated that the Parish Council did not object to the development of the site, but it did object to the bulk and overbearing nature of the application.  In addition, it contravened the recently adopted Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Policy D1 stated that building heights should reflect the character of the Parish.  The development of three storey housing would generally only be supported within the area of the Strategic Development Location and the Gorse Ride regeneration area, which the site was not.  Roger Marshally went on to comment that this was the first planning application which had come forward since the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan which had contravened it around the building heights, and it would be shame that if in the first instance the Plan was applied, it was ignored.

Pauline Grainger, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She commented that the application contravened D1 and D2 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and also impacted her property in respect to various WBC considerations for planning applications.  Pauline Grainger stated that the dormer windows on the second floor would deprive her property of privacy in the garden, representing a loss of residential amenity.  She felt that the dormers would not have an oblique view.  The scale of the three-storey dwelling would overshadow her property and significantly reduce the light on her east elevation.  Pauline Grainger indicated that her property was not two storeys as described in the report, but a single storey building.  Her current outlook was a low wall, a low roof and sky.  This would be replaced by a wall which was at least twice as high and a large roof.  The windows on the side of the property would look down into her bathroom.  She went on to state that the footprint of the house, because of the single-story protruding at the back and side of the building, and the outbuilding represented a large increase on the existing footprint, considerably reducing the size of the garden.  This was against design policy within the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan.  In addition, the site plan from July showed the site sitting 821cm from 204 Nine Mile Ride and 1m from 206A Nine Mile Ride, and not 1.2m and 1.8m as set out in the officer report, thereby contravening design principal R16.  The revised site plan dated October showing a revised driveway had not corrected these measurements.   Pauline Grainger stated that the excavations were likely to disturb the roots of long-standing shrubs, hedging and trees along the shared boundary line, 1m from the property.  The loss of these would be detrimental to the street scene.

Councillor Rebecca Margetts, ward member, spoke in objection to the application.  She emphasised that the application went against core policies in the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan and was not in keeping with the street scene of the Wokingham Borough Design Guide.  The proposed application would replace a single-storey bungalow with a three-storey dwelling, altering the street scene and causing harm in the neighbouring area by dominating the other properties.  It would also be out of keeping visually, and its character would not reflect that of the surrounding area.  Rebecca Margetts indicated that the surrounding properties were either two-storeys or chalet style bungalows.  She commented that the application went against the general principles of the Borough Design Guide relating to context and character. 

Councillor Margetts was of the view that the proposed dwelling did not respond positively to the existing context or relate well to neighbouring properties.  Planning officers had identified that it was a three-storey dwelling and there were no other examples in the immediate surrounding area.  She also referred to policy D1 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan which related to building heights, which she felt the application did not meet.  She emphasised that the application would also not meet Policy D2 which related to the rural character of the Parish.  Neighbouring properties would be dominated by the proposed dwelling.  Councillor Margetts referred to D3 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which stated that whilst the Neighbourhood Plan encouraged innovation and design, this needed to be sympathetic to, and complement existing styles, which was not the case.  Whilst development of the site had been expected, the proposed dominating style had not.  Finally, she urged the Committee to undertake a site visit should they have any doubts.

Councillor Wayne Smith proposed that the application be deferred to enable a site visit to assess bulk, scale, mass, and street scene.  This was seconded by Councillor Michael Firmager.

Brian Conlon clarified that the site visit would enable the Committee to see the relationship of the adjourning properties and their scale in relation to the information provided in Plan 4.

RESOLVED:  That application 231643 be deferred to allow the Planning Committee to undertake a site visit to assess bulk, scale, mass, and street scene.

(At this point in the meeting, Councillor Cornish returned to the meeting).