Agenda item

Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) on application ref. P20/S3876/FUL (Demolition of existing house and erection of 6 houses)

1. Additional windows to all plots;

2. Alterations to roof profile of Plots 1 & 2;

3. Alterations to first floor rear windows of Plots 1 & 2;

4. Alterations to footprint of Plot 1;

5. Alterations to ridge heights of all plots; and

6. Installation of solar PV panels to roof slopes of all plots.

(position of Plot 1 altered to reflect surveyed distances to boundary, ridge heights of all plots altered to reflect surveyed heights, solar PV panels added to all plots, overlays of approved and proposed footprint and elevations of Plot 1 and details of hard and soft landscaping including boundary wall treatment provided, as shown on amended plans received 6th July 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S3152/S73 for the Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) on application P20/S3876/FUL (Demolition of existing house and erection of 6 houses):

1. Additional windows to all plots;

2. Alterations to roof profile of Plots 1 and 2;

3. Alterations to first floor rear windows of Plots 1 and 2;

4. Alterations to footprint of Plot 1;

5. Alterations to ridge heights of all plots; and

6. Installation of solar PV panels to roof slopes of all plots.

(position of Plot 1 altered to reflect surveyed distances to boundary, ridge heights of all plots altered to reflect surveyed heights, solar PV panels added to all plots, overlays of approved and proposed footprint and elevations of Plot 1 and details of hard and soft landscaping including boundary wall treatment provided, as shown on amended plans received 6th July 2023), on land at Greylands, Gravel Hill, Peppard Common.  

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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application sought to vary the approved plans of an extant permission. The planning officer confirmed that the development had commenced and the application was therefore retrospective. He confirmed that the development remained acceptable under Local Plan policy H16. Furthermore, following detailed assessment the planning officer confirmed that the changes applied for in relation to the location of the properties, notably plot one, was on balance an acceptable interrelationship of the properties. He noted this was subject to the imposition of planning conditions requiring the side windows to be obscured glazing and fixed shut and the removal of certain permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings and other alterations.

The planning officer clarified to the committee that the reduction of the boundary wall to 2.5 metres in height on the application site would result in a reduction of the wall to 1.84 metres in height on the opposite side. He also confirmed that the proposed changes had no discernible impact on the approved parking and access arrangements and did not impact the previously agreed market housing mix.

The planning officer concluded that the application complied with the relevant local plan policies and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

Sue Rowland spoke on behalf of Rotherfield Peppard Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Anna Murphy and John Murphy spoke objecting to the application.

Neil Boddington (Boddingtons Planning), the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Jo Robb, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting. The committee asked the planning officer to comment on the concerns raised in relation to the validity of the previous planning application. The planning officer confirmed that the application was valid despite the failure to include all land within the applicant’s ownership as there was no development on the land in question so there was no requirement to include the land in the application and therefore the matter did not go to the heart of the application.

The committee then asked the officer to explain which windows were subject to change as part of the application. The planning officer confirmed that there were no side windows in plot one under the original planning permission. He went on to confirm that the proposed side windows would be obscure glazed and this was secured by condition, and therefore if the windows currently installed were not, these would need to be replaced prior to first occupation. The planning officer then advised that the approved rear windows would be moved 24cm away from the boundary under the current application.

The committee asked for clarification that the variation of conditions application addressed the issues raised by objectors as to the misrepresentation of the location of plot one. The planning officer confirmed that the variation of conditions application before the committee addressed all of the changes which had been made and included some changes to the footprint of the building. The committee reflected that it was not possible to address the objectors’ misunderstanding of the plans and therefore the positioning of the property in the original application via a variation of conditions application.

The committee then queried the planning officer on a statement in their report with regard to distances from the rear windows being less than that set out in the Joint Design Guide and that this did not apply as the distances in the Joint Design Guide apply to back-to-back measurements. The officer confirmed that as this was an oblique view the guidance did not apply. Officers were required to make a judgement in these cases. The planning officer further clarified that the distances were window to window and not window to garden measurements.

The committee went on to ask if the existing wall at its highest point could be retained and extended at that height for the full length of the wall. The planning officer confirmed that the boundary treatment plan showed the wall was to be retained and that sections which were in poor condition where outbuildings had previously been built against the wall would be removed and the more historic sections of the wall would be treated. The planning officer confirmed that it was within the committee’s gift to require the wall to be rebuilt at a higher level should they feel this was appropriate. The officer confirmed that the reasoning for the proposed works to the boundary wall was not for the purposes of screening but to repair and tidy up the wall. Officers were of the view that screening was not required as the level of overlooking was acceptable.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application with the inclusion of an additional condition to retain the boundary wall at 3.3m in height through it’s length, was carried on being put to the vote. 

The committee reflected that the application was very complex but that the officer report was very helpful in understanding the application. The committee had reservations about the impact of the overlooking from plot 1 into the neighbouring property. The committee felt that by increasing the wall height to 3.3 metres along it’s full length the concerns of the neighbours could be mitigated.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S3152/S73, subject to the following conditions:

1. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans

2. Materials as agreed

3. Obscure glazing to side facing windows

4. Rooflights (Plots 5 and 6) to be at least 1.7m above floor level

5. Withdrawal of permitted development for extensions / outbuildings / hardsurfacing

6. Energy Statement Verification Report to be agreed prior to occupation

7. Refuse & Recycling Storage to be implemented as agreed prior to occupation

8. New vehicular access to be formed prior to occupation

9. Vision splays to be provided prior to occupation

10. Vision splays as approved to be retained

11. Parking and Manoeuvring Areas Retained as shown on approved plan

12. Landscaping implementation prior to occupation

13. Alterations to boundary wall prior to occupation

14. Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Measures to be provided prior to occupation

15. Contaminated Land - Remediation Report to be agreed prior to occupation

16. Surface Water Drainage details to be agreed prior to occupation

17. Foul Water Drainage details to be agreed prior to occupation

18. Electric charging points to be provided prior to occupation