Agenda item

Change of use of ground floor of existing building from residential to a mixed use of residential and childcare purposes and addition of a temporary wooden structure to the garden to provide a covered area.

The committee considered application P20/S2504/FUL for the change of use of ground floor of existing building from residential to a mixed use of residential and childcare purposes and addition of a temporary wooden structure to the garden to provide a covered area at 46 King James Way, 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 the meeting.

The planning officer informed the committee that the garden room at the rear of the garden would result in a total loss of outdoor amenity space with some harm to the residential amenity of property number 46. In addition, the depth of the low roof would result in some loss of sight on property number 44, which detracted from the overall residential amenity. It was noted that there had been no objections to the application from the environmental health officer nor the highways officer. In assessing the application, the planning officer explained that whilst there was a moderate harm to the residential amenity due to conflicts with local planning policies DES5 and DES6, the harm had been outweighed by the community and employment benefits. The planning officer concluded that the conditions would be tied to childcare purposes, and limitations would allow a maximum number of children of seven to use the site, and the site’s usage would be limited to working day times only. Subject to the proposed conditions as detailed in the planning officer’s report and presentation, the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Ken Arlett, representative of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The committee asked whether the conditions would require the dismantling of the proposed development if the dwelling was to change to a fully residential unit. The planning officer in response read out the full condition which dealt with this question.

The committee asked if OFSTED had visited the site since the timber building had been built and if not, whether the business was lawful without an OFSTED review having taken place. The planning officer responded that this matter was not a planning matter but rather an issue that OFSTED would need to handle. The planning officer added that the committee’s consideration should be tied to the application before them and whether they felt it was acceptable, based on planning considerations. The committee asked a follow-up question and asked if the environmental health or highways officers had visited the site before making no objection. The planning officer advised the committee that he was not aware of any details, but reassured the committee that these officers would have had access to the same information the committee had and that environmental health colleagues also had access to the complaints database, and so could have seen if any complaints had been made already. The planning officer was also asked if they knew how many of the neighbouring properties were held as rented property, to which they advised that this was not information the council would hold.

The committee raised concerns on the application’s compliance with policy and guidance with an expression that the proposed development did not comply with criteria. The committee noted that the building did not keep in character to the surrounding area and failed to provide any mitigating enhancement to the surroundings. Additionally, the committee was concerned with the loss of amenity space, with no replacement space being provided, or existing land altered to provide replacement amenity space. In response to these concerns, the planning officer stated that in his view, the application would not detract from the surroundings and in that regard would not conflict with policy guidance.

In response to a series of questions from the committee relating to the type of use of the proposed application site and its acceptability in the area, the planning officer informed the committee that no objections had been raised locally and the type of use was acceptable for the particular location. The committee was also advised that planning policy DQS1 referred to ‘all new development’ and the planning officer considered this application as being a new development which could fall under that policy.

The committee asked for clarification for the materials of the roof and windows. The response from the planning officer was that the roof was made from perspex, but he did not have information regarding the window material. In response to this, the committee noted a concern on the safety of the unit for children due to the material trapping heat which could lead to a dangerous temperature for children in summer periods. Following a supplementary question on shading around the proposed unit, the planning officer added that the site faced southwards and there was currently a large tree which cast shade during the day, however it was mentioned that this tree could not be guaranteed for permanent retention. Finally, the committee sought clarification on whether any response had been received from house number 44 from the consultation regarding the application. The planning officer confirmed that they had been consulted, but they had not provided any comments in response.

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

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P20/S2504/FUL due to:

1.     Concerns on materials and the size of the outbuilding and the impact to the character of the area.

2.     Harm to the amenity of the neighbouring resident (Number 44).

3.     Loss of the whole garden, and the diminishing quality of the living environment for house number 46.