Outline application for refurbishment, extension and alteration of Kingsley House from 4 flats to up to 8 flats incorporating access matters with all other matters reserved (block, site and site access plans revised on arboricultural grounds received 21st May 2021 and corrected by plans received 7th June 2021 and footprint of Firs Lodge corrected and details of parking, bin storage and extension proposals removed as shown on amended plans received 24th June 2021).
Councillor Jane Murphy left the meeting before the start of the item.
The committee considered application P21/S1389/O for an outline application for refurbishment, extension and alteration of Kingsley House from 4 flats to up to 8 flats incorporating access matters with all other matters reserved (block, site and site access plans revised on arboricultural grounds received 21st May 2021 and corrected by plans received 7th June 2021 and footprint of Firs Lodge corrected and details of parking, bin storage and extension proposals removed as shown on amended plans received 24th June 2021).
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 the meeting.
The planning officer informed the committee that the highway authority only saw a modest increase in vehicle numbers. In addition, the planning officer added that they considered the access alterations to be acceptable. The planning officer also confirmed that there would not be any additional noise nuisance, and this would comply with policy DES6. With regards to the historical nature of the building, the committee were informed that the council’s conservation officer had confirmed that due to conversion of the building into flats during the 1970’s, the building was classed as having lost integrity and was therefore not a listed building. However, the building could be considered a designated heritage asset in order to retain its existing characteristics. The planning officer concluded by confirming that for the application before them, it complied with the relevant criteria and was therefore recommended for approval.
Councillor Chris Penrose, representative of Shiplake Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Nick Meredith, local resident, spoke against the application.
John Stewart and Paul Southouse, the applicant, and the agent respectively, spoke in support of the application.
The committee asked the speaker why no detailed planning application had been presented at the meeting. The speakers responded that the application was to agree the principles of access and a further application, if the existing application was granted, would then follow. A follow-up question was then raised and asked how the applicant could seek the committee to consider up to eight residential units as flats without the information presented. The speakers replied stating that a full topographical and site survey had been carried out and they considered eight dwellings feasible if the existing building was re-worked, however they had not pursued this further until the principles of access were agreed.
The committee also asked the speaker a question on the driveway and its practicality for vehicle use. The response to this from the speaker was that there would be a widening to ensure two cars could pass each-other, and two sections would be constructed to enable passing places where the road was not wide enough for opposing traffic to move past one another at the same time.
Councillor David Bartholomew, the local ward member, spoke against the application.
The committee asked whether the road was strong enough for the proposed application, or whether it would suffer a fast rate of erosion. The response to the committee was that the driveway was in the ownership of the applicant, and it would therefore be in the interests of the owners to maintain it. Additionally, the planning officer also added that separate households would use it, and due to it being a private road, any maintenance would be between the relevant parties.
A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to refuse outline planning permission for application P21/S1389/O due to the harm to the amenity of neighbours through the increase in traffic movements along the access.