Agenda item

P20/S0510/FUL - Land to rear of 16 Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames

Erection of a three storey building to provide three 1-bedroom flats (Daylight and Sunlight report received 29th May 2020; amended elevation received 23rd June 2020, clarifying external materials to be used for the stair core).

Minutes:

The committee considered planning application P20/S0510/FUL for the erection of a three-storey building to provide three 1-bedroom flats (Daylight and Sunlight report received 29th May 2020; amended elevation received 23rd June 2020, clarifying external materials to be used for the stair core) on land to rear of 16 Reading Road, Henley-on-Thames.

 

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

 

The planning officer reported that this application had been deferred at the 21October 2020 meeting to facilitate a site visit by members of the committee. With reference to objections which had been made regarding loss of light to neighbours, the planning officer reported that the applicant had commissioned a professional Daylight and Sunlight Report, which assessed the proposal against the 2011 Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines on Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. The study had found that all windows assessed at the Reading Road Flats 6a to 6d would continue to benefit from adequate daylight and sunlight as measured against the BRE criteria. It also concluded that 50 percent of the properties’ amenity areas would continue to benefit from at least 2 hours sunlight at the spring equinox. Whilst objections to the content of the professional report had been received, officers did not have evidence directly contradicting the findings.

 

The planning officer reported that an area of the proposed curved stairwell would be directly visible from the patio and kitchen at flat 6b to the south. However, the living room of that property was also served by openings facing to the west, from which the view would be largely unaffected. Whilst there was an absence of demonstrable harm to flats 6a and 6b, in terms of daylight and sunlight, the perceived enclosure of the neighbours’ amenity areas and consequent level of harm was a matter of judgement. One of the proposed conditions dealt with energy efficiency; prior to the commencement of the development, an energy statement would be completed, demonstrating how the development would achieve at least a 40% reduction in carbon emissions compared with code 2013 Building Regulations. In conclusion, the planning officer advised the committee that council officers considered that this was a sustainable development, which was suitable for three 1-bed properties.

 

Mr. Paul Scrivens, a local resident at 6d Reading Road, spoke objecting to the application. A statement by Mr. Scrivens had be sent to the committee by the democratic services officer some days prior to the meeting.

 

Mr. Edward Couldwell, a local resident at 6b Reading Road, spoke objecting to the application.

 

The issue of fire escapes and the fact that any scheme would still need to comply with building regulations irrespective of whether planning consent was granted was noted by the committee. It expressed concern at the apparently insufficient fire escape routes and inadequate access for emergency vehicles.  The committee considered that the proposed development would be overbearing and adversely affect the quality of life of existing residents. Amenity space for future occupants was also considered to be unsatisfactory.

 

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission for was carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: that planning permission for planning application P20/S0510/FUL be refused for the following reasons;

 

1.       Impact upon neighbouring residents, particularly at 6b and 6d Reading       Road.

2.       Visual intrusion.

3.       Impact upon privacy of neighbouring residents.

4.       Adverse effect upon neighbours’ light levels.

5.       Inadequate amenity space for future occupants. 

6.       Adverse effect upon quality of life of neighbouring residents.

Supporting documents: