West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee ...

West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee 10th June 2009

Item No

Application No. and Parish

8/13 Week Date Proposal, Location and Applicant

(1)

09/00393/FULMAJ Inkpen

28th July 2009 Construction of 10 affordable dwellings with associated access road, amenity space and parking spaces. Land Adjoining Rushwood Post Office Road Inkpen Hungerford Berkshire Mr Robin And Mrs Angela Mann

Recommendation Summary:

The Head of Planning and Trading Standards be authorised to REFUSE planning permission.

Ward Member(s):

Councillors Stansfeld and Rowles

Reason for Committee determination:

The Council has received in excess of 10 letters of support and there is significant local public interest in the application.

Committee Site Visit:

5th June 2009.

Contact Officer Details Name: Michael Butler Job Title: Principal Planning Officer Tel No: (01635) 519111 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Western Area Planning Committee Reports - 2009-06-10


1. Site History 04/02578/ful - 4 bed detached house – Refused December 2004. 05/01463/cert - Continued use of land for paddock - Approved October 2005. 07/02743/fulmaj - 12 No. affordable homes – Refused April 2008. Various enforcement queries in addition. 2. Publicity of application. 83 neighbours notified. Site notice erected on the 15th April 2009 - expiry on the 6th May 2009. Amended plans site notice erected on the 14th May 2009 – expiry on 28th May 2009. Normal press notice published. 3. Consultations and Representations Parish Council: Object to the application on the following grounds. Contrary to

local ecological factors, impact upon trees, no local housing need proven in a “proper” survey, covenant on land would prevent development, land is not brown field, building design is of poor quality, contrary to Inkpen VDS, believe contrary to adopted RSS policy, non sustainable location, few local facilities, over development of the site, light pollution .A consultant architect has also submitted a report on behalf of the parish noting the poor overall design of the scheme in terms of layout etc. If approved would want full £4000 contribution per dwelling to be directed towards public open space in the parish, and a number of planning conditions suggested.

CPRE Object to the application. Not a sustainable location, contrary to guidance in PPS1, contrary to the AONB management plan, housing survey is suspect i.e. no clearly defined housing need shown, does not protect the local environment, effect on TPO’s, will suburbanise the street scene.

Highways: Currently considering the amended plans regarding the new access position. If approval, then request £22,000 in developer contributions under SPG4/04 as amended. [Currently recommending refusal on the original set of plans],

Environment Agency

No response noted .

Police Liaison Officer

Conditional permission following alterations to the scheme. Casual intrusion into site needs to be better controlled however.

Tree Officer Currently objecting to the application on the basis that the scheme access will compromise the TPO trees on site and their rooting systems. Amended plans – comments awaited.



Housing Officer Object to the application - an up-to-date housing needs survey has not been undertaken with the Parish Council’s support in accord with Policy HSG11 and SPG4/04 advice, plus the Rural Exceptions Sites Housing Procedure Report, October 2008.

Public Protection Conditional permission – contaminated land, noise and dust suppression.

Planning Policy Object to the application on policy grounds, similar to Housing Officer’s response – however, the principle accords with HSG11.

Fire and Rescue No additional fire hydrants required.

Council Ecologist No objections.

Social Care Contribution of £5162 requested.

Public Open Space Contribution of £14,288 requested.

Primary Care Trust Contribution of £1352 requested.

Library Service Contribution of £1960 requested.

Education Contribution of £1076 requested.

Thames Water No response noted.

Landscape Consultant

Objects to the application as it stands – impact upon the unusual settlement pattern of Inkpen and impact upon the treed frontage. Landscape concept plan needs to be submitted.

Correspondence: At the time of writing the Council has received 70 letters of objection to the application. Concerns based upon – traffic impact, visual impact, precedent, lack of local housing need, not a sustainable location, i.e. lack of local facilities, the site is greenfield so should not be built upon, impact upon trees, poor access - dangerous, impact upon the character of the area. 27 letters of support received on the application – the village needs such housing to accommodate those who cannot afford to live there, it is a good site for building upon, parking and traffic will not present a problem, it will assist the local school role, a necessary boost for the younger generation, assist the sustainability of the local community, accords with the latest Government guidelines.

4. Policy Considerations PPS1 PPS3 South East Plan May 2009 - Policies CC7, H2, H3, C3, C4, BE5. West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 - Policies OVS2, OVS3, HSG11, ENV1. Developer Contributions – SPG4/04. Circular 5/2005.



5. Description of Development

5.1 The application site is 0.45 ha in extent and is approximately square in plan form. It is surrounded on two sides by existing housing, one side by Post Office Road and to the rear by woodland. Whilst a greenfield site, it has an authorised use as a paddock under the Certificate of Lawful Use approved in 2005. It is proposed to erect 10 affordable dwellings on the site, 8 of which will be maisonettes, all 2 bedroomed, and a pair of semi detached dwellings both 3 bedroomed. The units will be 2 storey and of traditional design set around a short cul-de-sac which will accommodate the parking for 20 vehicles, [a ratio of 1 unit per 2 spaces], with a turning head in order to make the road up to adoptable standard. The maisonettes will have communal space to the rear, whilst the houses will have individual gardens. The revised access position will be immediately opposite the existing access to the “works” – the former sawmill site. The houses are fairly centrally located on the site in order to accommodate the local tree canopies and root areas. The density will thus be 22.22 units per ha.

6. Consideration of the Proposal 6.1 The application will be considered under the following headings:- Policy and housing need. Highways issues. Other issues – local amenity and s106 contributions. Policy and housing need. 6.1.1 PPS3 states in para. 27 that “the Government is committed to providing high quality

housing for people who are unable to afford or access market housing, for example vulnerable people and key workers…”. Policy H3 in the very recently adopted South East Plan, notes, inter alia, that the future provision of affordable housing will be secured by ”working with local communities in rural areas to secure small scale affordable housing within or well related to settlements, possibly including land which would not otherwise be released for development”.

6.1.2 Policy HSG11 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies

2007, [the Berkshire Structure Plan is no longer in force having been superceded by the South East Plan 2009-05-27] notes that as an exception to the normally restrictive policies for protecting and conserving the countryside – in which the application site is situated - sites can be released for 100% affordable housing in order to meet LOCAL needs in the relevant parish.

6.1.3 Five criteria attach to this policy base. Criterion a] notes that the housing need must

be demonstrated by way of a recent local survey. The applicants’ agent has undertaken such a survey, but this does not appear to be particularly robust or indeed comprehensive, nor has it been done in concert with the local Parish Council’s agreement, which is normally best practice, as advocated by the rural housing enabler in the CCB and indeed as advocated within the Housing Topic Paper in SPG4/04. Accordingly, as recognised in the Housing Departments response, this does not comply with criterion a] in the adopted policy and hence fails this first and important test of the policy.



6.1.4 Secondly, criterion b] seeks to ensure that any scheme will be reserved for local occupants. This would normally be achieved via the “cascade mechanism” noted by the housing officers, which gives first priority for the housing to those who have strong local connections to the Parish in the first instance. This would need to be agreed via a s106 obligation which has not been completed for this application, although it is understood that the applicant is willing to enter into such an obligation, if invited to do so. This has not been the case however, given the officer recommendation to refuse the proposal. Accordingly this second test is failed.

6.1.5 Criterion c] of the policy seeks to ensure that the development does not adversely

impact upon the area. By its very nature almost any new building in the parish will create some visual harm, and this application is no exception. It is questionable whether the paddock is particularly important to the local area, being visually self contained, but undoubtedly there will be some degree of “harm” to the street scene potentially worsened by the impact upon the treed frontage and perimeter of the site. Accordingly, in the light of the landscape consultant’s comments, a precautionary approach is taken to this issue, especially in the light of the site being within the AONB. The scheme thus fails this test.

6.1.6 Criterion d] seeks to ensure that the application complies with policy OVS2, the

core policy in the local plan. A whole range of criteria are included in this policy. The principal ones to consider in this context are impact upon local amenity and highways/ access considerations .These will be taken later in the report.

6.1.7 Finally, criterion e] notes that the affordable housing schemes should be made

available in perpetuity as affordable to local needs. Similar factors apply here as with criterion b] i.e. no s106 obligation has been concluded on this matter, but it is understood that if the committee were minded to approve the scheme, the applicant is willing to enter into such an obligation. So again at present the scheme fails this test.

6.1.8 In conclusion, whilst some may consider [i.e. the supporters] that there is an

undisputed local need for affordable housing in the parish and that this site is a “suitable” one to develop. It is apparent to officers [and presumably the objectors] that for the reasons above the scheme does not satisfy any of the criteria in policy HSG11 and so should be rejected on this basis alone.

Highways issues. 6.2.1 At the time of writing this report, the highways officer is recommending refusal to

the application on the basis of the original plans submitted as part of the application. This is because on those original plans, the internal vehicle turning heads were not satisfactory to accommodate the refuse vehicles of the Council, and secondly the required forward visibility splays of 2.4m by 43m were not deemed to be achievable. Hence, no satisfactory adopted road layout was designed, and traffic safety would be compromised by the lack of forward visibility. Subsequent to this the applicant has provided a revised location for the proposed access and revised highway comments are awaited. [see update].

6.2.2 Assuming the new plans do overcome the above difficulties, the application will not

be rejected by highways This is in the full knowledge that the site location is not



“sustainable”, but by their very nature such exception schemes can rarely, if ever be. Secondly, there is no highways rejection on traffic generation grounds from the additional vehicles on the network arising from the 10 houses - the capacity is available on the local highway network to accommodate such flows.

6.2.3 Again, if members are minded to approve the scheme, then this will be subject to a

£22,000 developer contribution for local bus service improvements, highway safety improvements in the parish, and improvements to pedestrian, cycle and bus stop facilities in the parish. It is also important to recognise that given the generous amount of on site parking [2 spaces per unit] there is no concern over on street parking being encouraged in the vicinity of the application site.

6.2.4 However, the Tree Officer still has concerns over the impact of the required

visibility splays on the trees across the site frontage which are protected by a TPO. These splays will inevitably mean cutting back this frontage vegetation, which may be detrimental to the trees. Accordingly, again taking the precautionary approach at this stage, the application fails not only the Highways Officer’s requirements, but also the Tree Officer’s.

Local amenity and s106 contributions. 6.3.1 As noted earlier, the site is adjoined on three sides by housing. The distances

involved are as follows - Charlwood to the south west is approximately 29m from flank wall to the rear of maisonettes Nos. 1 to 4, the house opposite across the road is 26m from frontage to flank wall and finally, Rushwood itself, to the northeast, lies some 30m away [flank to flank]. Given these generous separations, it is not considered that there will be any undue harm arising from overlooking, overshadowing, or general noise and disturbance, even in this quiet rural locality, such that the application could be rejected on these grounds. The application thus accords with criterion [h] of policy OVS2 in the saved local plan.

6.3.2 Members will appreciate that given the substantial planning “gain” achieved by

the provision of 100% affordable housing, the Council has in the past waived some/all of the developer contributions requested under SPG4/04 for similar applications, notwithstanding the impact that the new residents will still have upon local facilities, services, and infrastructure. The total amount currently being requested by all the services is £45,838. The applicants agent has stated that the applicant is happy to pay these contributions in the light of no confidential financial information being submitted which would satisfy the Council that the ongoing viability of the scheme would be jeopardised by the inclusion of these contributions. Having said that, in the continued absence of the required s106 obligation to secure these monies, this will be an additional reason for refusal to protect the Council’s position should the application be refused and then subsequently appealed.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The application has little to commend it. It does not comply with the substantive

Policy HSG11 for the reasons as set out above, nor does it have [at the time of writing] an acceptable highways layout or principal access point. It will have a detrimental impact upon the local street scene and will adversely affect protected trees. Finally, no s106 obligation is in place to a] secure the required developer



contributions, or b] secure the homes for just local people, and secure the affordability in perpetuity, in accord with adopted development plan policy. As such the application is deemed to be unacceptable and so should be rejected.

8. Full Recommendation The Head of Planning and Trading Standards be authorised to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:- 1. The applicant has failed to enter into a s106 planning obligation which would ensure the following - a] the affordable homes to be maintained as affordable in perpetuity in concert with an approved Housing RSL, b] that only locals in need will be accommodated and c] the payment of developer contributions under the Council’s SPG4/04 to mitigate the impact of the new housing occupants on local services, facilities and infrastructure. Accordingly the application is considered contrary to Policies OVS3 and HSG11 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007, the advice contained within SPG4/04, Circular 5/2005, and Policy CC7 in the South East Plan 2009. 2. The applicant has failed to adequately consider the protection of trees on the site frontage in regard to the continuing Tree Preservation Order on the trees on site, in relation to the proposed site access and the proximity of the dwellings to root areas. Accordingly it is expected that should the application proceed unacceptable harm would be caused to the trees in question which would not only be harmful to the local street scene but also be contrary to Policy OVS2 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007. 3. The applicant has failed to undertake a comprehensive and accurate local housing needs survey in the Inkpen Parish which would have ensured the precise justification for the new affordable housing as in accord with the advice contained within Policy HSG11 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and the Council’s SPG4/04. Given this lack of justification, and the lack of any evidence of an approved RSL working with the applicant in progressing the scheme, the application is considered to be unacceptable. 4. The application is considered to be contrary to the Inkpen Village Design statement, in terms of the nature and form of affordable housing proposed in relation particularly to paragraph 3.1 of that VDS. The application is thus not acceptable in terms of the local community policy. 5. The application site lies within the North Wessex Downs AONB, a national landscape designation. Given the unusual built form and pattern of settlement of the village of Inkpen, it is considered that this loss of paddock, albeit within the relatively tighter built form of the village in this location, will serve to suburbanise the street scene to its detriment by introducing a built enclave in an otherwise open and undeveloped frontage. It is thus considered that notwithstanding the good screening of trees around the site especially to the rear, there will be demonstrable harm to the overall character of Inkpen which will accordingly harm the wider AONB. The application is thus contrary to the advice contained within Policies ENV1 and HSG11 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and Policy C3 in the South East Plan 2009. 6. The proposed access for the application proposal does not comply with the local highway authorities standards in relation to forward visibility splays, given the impact this



will have upon protected trees in order to achieve these splays. Accordingly the application is considered to be contrary to Policy OVS2 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007. . DC


HAMSTEAD MARSHALL 08/001701

Foxlee Farm, Hamstead Marshall Mr P Early

Erection of a replacement dwelling

Refusal Dismissed 28.5.09

The Inspector considered that there was one main issue in the appeal, namely the effect that the development would have on the character of the countryside and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. He noted that the existing dwelling on the appeal site, which has the benefit of a Lawful Development Certificate issued in 2004, is a single storey, one bedroom, timber structure in an isolated position adjacent to a narrow lane. It would be replaced by a two storey three bedroom house. He noted that in the West Berkshire District Local Plan, as amended September 2007, policy ENV 23 states that the replacement of dwellings in the countryside will be permitted, provided a number of criteria are met, namely (a) the existing dwelling is long established and is not the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions; (b) the proposed dwelling is not disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling; (c) the proposed design is of a high standard and appropriate to the rural character of the area; (d) the development complements existing buildings or features; (e) scale, design, materials, layout and siting are appropriate; (f) an acceptable landscape scheme is included to improve the rural nature of the area. This section of the Local Plan goes on to say that in assessing proposals the likely key determinants are a) overall size of the replacement compared with the original, b) site characteristics and visual prominence, c) impact on and relationship to adjoining buildings and uses, d) whether on balance the development would maintain/enhance or detract from the inherent character and nature of the site and the surrounding rural environment. Further guidance on replacement dwellings and extensions in the countryside, in Supplementary Planning Guidance adopted in 2004, states that an increase in floor-space of more than 50% would generally be regarded as disproportionate and an increase of more than 100% could not normally be considered as a one for one replacement, although an exception to the 50% guideline for size increase may be appropriate where the original dwelling is relatively small and a large percentage increase may be necessary, for example to bring the dwelling up to modern living standards. In this case, the increase in the area of the footprint of the house would be modest, at about 12%, but the floor-space, as ascertained by external measurement in accordance with supplementary planning guidance, now 90sq.m, would be more than doubled. The height of the building, 7.3m, would be substantially greater than the 4m height of the existing structure. He appreciated that the existing structure is not attractive, but because of its low profile and timber cladding, it is not particularly prominent when viewed against the background of large trees and open fields. By contrast, the new house would be very much more prominent in the open landscape. Although it would be partly screened by mature trees and other vegetation on the road frontage, it would nevertheless be readily visible from this frontage and the rear would be clearly visible across the open land that slopes down to the south west. As the existing dwelling is small, he agreed with the appellant that this is a case where a higher percentage increase in floor area than normal may be justified. However, he was not convinced that the size and design of the proposed house is appropriate for this location. Although, in principle, a three bedroom house, on what is shown to be a sizeable residential curtilage, would not appear unreasonable when compared with the approved replacement dwelling referred to by the appellant at the neighbouring Enborne Valley Farm, it appeared to the Inspector that there are significant differences. In the latter case, the house, subject to an agricultural occupancy condition, is located well away from the road and is not readily visible from


the road or from the appellant’s adjoining land. From the drawings submitted by the appellant, it appears to me that the floor area is significantly less than that proposed in this case and, with the first floor accommodation all contained within a simple pitched roof form with dormers, the volume of the building has been minimised. This contrasts with the appeal proposal which would have a full second storey and a relatively complicated profile, with projecting bays, gables and a balcony that, as the Council says, would be more appropriate in an urban location. In his opinion the proposed house, because of its location and its detailed design, would be excessive in size and massing and would thereby be physically and visually intrusive, in conflict with the objectives of policy ENV 23 to protect the nature and character of the rural environment. It follows that it would harm the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in so far as it would introduce unreasonably obtrusive urban characteristics into open countryside that is typified by wooded areas and open fields. In addition to Enborne Valley Farm, he had regard to other cases referred to by the appellant, but either by reason of their size and nature, such as Holtwood House, or their distance from the appeal site, he did not consider that they are directly comparable with the appeal proposal. The Inspector also took account of the appellant’s unilateral undertaking dated 22 April 2009 to remove one of the existing heavy goods vehicle trailers on the site and to remove the second one if permission were to be granted for the erection of a garage. He agreed that the removal of the trailers would enhance the overall appearance of the site but he did not consider that this would be enough to make the development acceptable. DC


NEWBURY 08/00688

Nos. 174 -178 Craven Road, Newbury Renaissance Habitat Ltd

Amendment of Condition No.11 to allow the addition of a velux rooflight on west elevation and three velux rooflights of east elevation

Delegated Refusal Allowed 11.5.09

The appeal ostensibly sought a variation of Condition 11 attached to the consent for 14 flats at the site in Craven Road, Newbury. This related to obscure glazing of windows at first floor level on the east and west elevations of the building as permitted .The applicant chose the Section 73 route [rather than an application to simply vary the external elevations] since he wished to test the principal permission in terms of challenging the original s106 obligation for education contributions. Unfortunately the Inspector did not seem to appreciate the reasoning behind this method. However, she was obliged to consider the appeal as it stood. The appellant did not query any of the s106 developer contributions from any other service, apart from Education. He [the appellant] took issue with the principle of how the Education Service calculated the net gain of dwellings – essentially the Education Service maintained that the educational impact of three 3 bed dwellings was identical to three 2 bed flats i.e. the calculation was simply done on the basis of dwelling numbers unlike any of the other Council services and indeed other local planning authorities. This naturally had the affect of increasing the amount of contribution requested by the Education Service. The Inspector found that the basis of Education’s logic was inherently flawed and did not comply with the advice in Circular 5/2005. She therefore “selected” one of the eight unilateral obligations submitted by the appellant which contained a figure of £12,144 for the Education Service, as opposed to the figure first requested [and agreed in a past appeal] of some £22,766. In arriving at this decision, the Inspector took into account child yield figures from 2 bed flats and 3 bed houses and agreed that the yield from 3 bed houses would be greater than 2 bed flats. The appeal was thus allowed on the basis of the unilateral as noted. DC


HAMSTEAD MARSHALL 08/01217

Garage site adj 1 The Village, Hamstead Marshall, Templegate Properties Ltd

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 storey detached dwelling with three parking spaces

Delegated Refusal

Dismissed 28.5.09

The Inspector considered that the main issues in the appeal were the effect of the proposal on the character of the area in the light of development plan policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and on the provision of local infrastructure, services and amenities. In terms of the character and appearance of the area, he noted that Hamstead Marshall consists of a number of separate clusters of houses set around cross roads or scattered along the narrow lanes and separated by the open countryside. This dispersed pattern of development is not recognised as a settlement in terms of policy HSG.1 of the Berkshire District Local Plan (LP). It is therefore a location where countryside policies apply. In such localities LP policy ENV.20, subject to a number of criteria, is permissive of development in sustainable locations, which would assist in the diversification of the rural economy and secure environmental improvements. The Inspector described the appeal site as a mainly hard surfaced area which contains two rather dilapidated garages. It is gated and he was advised that it was unused. It lies within a strip of ribbon development extending out from Ash Tree Corner. To its east and west are dwellings; and whilst the garden of Waverley wraps round the back of the site, essentially to the north and south is open countryside which forms part of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The garages are tucked away towards the back of the site and together with the surrounding vegetation this means that they are not prominent. They are low key. In planning terms, despite its brownfield status, the site is seen as a generally open one which emphasises the close relationship between the countryside and built-up area. The appeal proposal for a two storey house would substantially fill the width of the plot and be closer to the road. The width of the access and the extensive parking area in front of the property would mean there was no opportunity to soften the impact of the built form. The new dwelling would have a far greater effect than the existing buildings. It would consolidate residential use and activity in this rural location which, in his opinion, would be harmful to the character and appearance of a locality which is protected for its natural beauty. He appreciated that the site is somewhat unkempt, but there are untidy, overgrown, derelict sites throughout the countryside and he did not find this to be a persuasive reason to permit the development proposed. Nor did he find the location to be particularly sustainable. A new dwelling in a dispersed community which has virtually no facilities or services and a two hourly bus service would not minimise the need to travel. It has been suggested that it would diversify the rural economy, but there is little evidence to support this assertion. He therefore concluded on this issue that the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 (SP) policy DP6 and LP policies ENV.18, ENV.20 and HSG.1. The provision of infrastructure – SP policy DP4 and LP policy OVS.3 say that the planning authority must be satisfied that the infrastructure, services and amenities made necessary by a development are provided. Where works are needed that are directly related and fair and reasonable in terms of scale and kind, planning authorities may seek contributions for their provision. This is set out in more detail in SPG4/04 Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development - approach to securing developer contributions. He found no reason to doubt that this proposal would place additional demands on a range of local services.


In this case, because of the nature and location of development, the Council said that contributions related to health, education, the transportation network, libraries and open space are necessary. Having regard to development plan policies, SPG and Circular 05/2005 he considered that the contributions sought are relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposal, fairly and reasonably related in scale to the proposal and reasonable in all other respects. This is not disputed by the appellant who has said a unilateral undertaking agreeing to pay the requested amounts can be prepared. However no such undertaking has been provided. As a consequence the development conflicts with development plan policies and SPG and there would be a harmful effect on the provision of local infrastructure, services and amenities. He took account of the two appeal decisions referred to by the appellant. However the circumstances of those developments appear to be different to the case before him. In appeal 2074515 the development was to replace a prominent substantial eyesore with a property which was smaller in size and bulk and which was judged to be a more sympathetic addition to the landscape. In appeal 2024130 the surroundings had a suburban built up character and were in a sustainable location. The combination of the above, together with all the other matters raised, led him to conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan and the appeal should be dismissed. DC


NEWBURY 08/01876

Land to rear of No. 3 Porchester Road, Newbury Jayborth Properties Ltd

Erection of Three 2-bed flats

Delegated Refusal

Dismissed 22.5.09

The Inspector considered that, in this appeal, there were three main issues. One issue is the effect of the development on the character of the area. The second issue is the effect on the living conditions of residents of neighbouring buildings, having regard in particular to privacy and amenity space. The third issue is the effect on the provision of infrastructure, local services and amenities. No. 3 Porchester Road is a three storey Victorian house converted into five flats. The proposal is to erect a three storey block of two bedroom flats at the rear, on what is now a grass amenity area. The existing parking area would be retained and additional parking space provided at the side of the new block. With regard to the first issue, he noted that this section of Porchester Road, which adjoins a Conservation Area, is characterised by detached and semi-detached residential properties that have reasonably long gardens. Although the site to the west, at the rear of No. 1 Porchester Road and No. 96 Newtown Road, has been developed by a three storey block of flats, that site has a street frontage and access on to Newtown Road, in contrast to the appeal site which would have no street frontage and would be approached only by a narrow access at the side of the existing house. He considered that the development of this backland site in the manner proposed, with the building being only about 1m from the boundary of the rear garden at No. 5 Porchester Road and little more than 4m from the southern boundary, would involve a cramped and intrusive form of development that would fail to respect the existing pattern of development and character of the residential area. As such, it would conflict with policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan. With regard to the second issue, the Inspector considered that two matters are relevant. As for privacy, the rear of the new block would be 18.5m from the rear of the existing building. Although this would be less than the normal guideline distance of 21m between facing buildings, referred to in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document - Quality Design - Residential Development - the only habitable rooms at the rear of the new building would be one bedroom at each level. He noted that, if he were minded to grant permission, he agreed with the appellant that unreasonable overlooking could be dealt with by imposition of a condition requiring amended details or obscure glazing. The main rooms facing south would directly overlook only the garage court at the rear of Daval House. He did not consider that any possible overlooking of main rooms within that block would be serious. With regard to amenity space, the existing building would retain its small front garden but the grass area at the rear would be lost to existing residents. He appreciated that this area is separated from the flats by a gravel parking area but it is a quite pleasant space, enclosed by brick walls and partly shaded by trees, which he considered could continue to provide a valuable private amenity space for residents of the existing flats. Its loss would significantly harm the living conditions of residents.


As for the effect on infrastructure and local services and amenities, the Council referred to the absence of a scheme of works or a planning obligation to accord with policy OVS3 of the Local Plan and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 4/04 – Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development. The Council would expect contributions, in accordance with its adopted formula for each topic, towards highways, education, open space, libraries, social care and healthcare. The appellants state that they would be willing to submit a unilateral undertaking to make the contributions expected by the Council but no such undertaking was before him. He considered that the contributions sought by the Council generally appear to accord with the requirements of Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations – and to be in accordance with the development plan and adopted supplementary planning guidance. In the absence of an obligation to mitigate its effects, he concluded that the development would be likely to have a harmful effect on the provision of local infrastructure, services and amenities. He dismissed the appeal. DC


West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee ...

Documents

Transcript of West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee ...