Report To Regulatory Committee - 8 December 2010 Development Control
Subject : Appeal Decisions Quarterly Summary Report Report Ref : Appeals Qtr Report 08.10 – 10.10 Ward(s) : All Report Of : Head of Planning and Transport Derek Vout - Direct Line (01256) 845403. Contact : E-mail - Derek.Vout@basingstoke.gov.uk Reporting Dates : 1st August 2010 to 31st October 2010 Papers relied on to Appeal Decisions published by The Planning Inspectorate. produce this http://www.planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk report: Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
SUMMARY
1.0 This Report :
1.1 Attached as Appendix A and B is a summary analysis of the appeal decisions received from the 1 August 2010 to 31October 2010. This highlights some of the issues drawn out by the Inspectors in arriving at their decision and which should be taken into account when future decisions are made, but is by no means a summary of all the issues referred to in the Inspectors’ decision notices.
1.2 Those decisions of particular note have been more fully detailed in Appendix A. A full copy of the decision letters can be requested from the contact above.
1.3 Any comments or suggestions on this quarterly report are welcomed from Members. Members may want to note that the next Appeal Summary Report will be reported to the March 2011 Development Control Committee meeting.
1.4 Any costs decisions are reported with each planning appeal. The agreed amount is finalised sometime after the appeal decision is issued. Between 1st August 2010 and 31st October 2010 there have been no settlements to report to members.
2 Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
2.1 The Committee notes this report.
1 of 13
3 Priorities, Impacts and Risks
Contribution To Council Priorities This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Council Plan Ref 06-09: Priority 3 Service Plan Ref 06-09: PL9 Other References: Contribution To Community Strategy Community Strategy Ref 03-06: Impacts No Some Significant Type significant impacts impacts impacts Impacts for Financial BDBC Personnel Legal Impacts on Equality and Diversity Wellbeing Crime and Disorder Health Environment Economic Involving Communication/Consultation Others Partners Risk Assessment Number of risks identified: Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium: Yes Strategic: Already identified on Corporate Risk Register? No Yes Operational: Already identified in Service Plans? No
2 of 13 APPENDIX A
05/08/2010 Land to rear 13/15 Hill Road, Oakley BDB 70679 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the construction of 7 dwellings with associated access, parking and amenity space.
There are a number of issues which taken together suggest the site is overdeveloped. All three blocks have hidden flat roofs which suggests the houses, particularly in the two main blocks are unusually deep. The result is excessively large flank walls to the two main blocks, which would make them appear over-large and dominant. Another feature of the two main blocks is that they fill the space available almost to the boundaries, leaving little room for landscaping and screening. This design amounts to over-development that harms the character and appearance of the area.
A mature Ash subject to a TPO stands in the far north-east corner of the site. This will require a 30% reduction in order to provide a reasonable gap between the canopy and nearest house on plot 7. The Council calculate it would shade 60% of the rear garden of plot 7. As this is a north facing garden, it will receive little direct sunshine anyway, and for most of it to be overhung by a tree it will add to the sense of gloom, which would not provide good living conditions for the prospective occupiers.
Any development on this site will lead to a substantial reduction in the current dense vegetation and open up views into and out of any proposed houses. This will result in the peace and privacy currently enjoyed in the rear gardens of the houses that back onto the site being reduced.
Policies referred :
A2, C1, C2, C9, E1, E6 and E7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure
6/09/2010 Twiggys Farm, Freefolk, Whitchurch BDB 71576 Dismissed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation : Grant
The development proposed is a mobile home for use as a temporary agricultural workers dwelling
Some of the trappings and movements to and from the small holding inevitably mimic some of those of domestic occupation. Also general domestic paraphernalia, including such tell-tale signs of domestic use as refuse bins at the roadside at certain times, are characteristic of a dwelling. These various features would detract from the feeling of remoteness and tranquillity by signalling residential accommodation and by adding an element of urbanisation to Priory Lane.
The harm to the remote and tranquil landscape character of the AONB outweighs the needs of the smallholding.
Cost application by appellant The process and basis of the Council’s decision was sound and it has not behaved unreasonably and not caused the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The application for costs therefore fails.
3 of 13
Policies referred :
E1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Landscape Character Assessment – Litchfield Down Countryside Design Summary
29/09/2010 36 Vyne Road, Basingstoke BDB 72018 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is erection of a terrace of 3 no. two bedroom dwellings with associated parking, and the retention of 36 Vyne Road as a family dwelling.
The appeal scheme would reduce the garden of 36 Vyne Road to roughly half its current depth which would materially reduce the contribution the setting makes to the building’s significance as a heritage asset.
Provisions for parking and refuse collection, and retaining an electricity transformer would in combination leave minimal scope for soft landscaping in the frontage courtyard area and along the drive.
The proposed layout would appear cramped, detracting from the more spacious character of the locality, which is indicative of an over-development of the site.
The elements of the unilateral undertaking obligation directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably relates to the development in scale and kind, and is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
Cost Application by Appellant The Council’s refusal reason relating to housing mix is unreasonable in the particular circumstances of this case, and the Council could have taken a more proactive approach in relation to this issue and to the matter of financial contributions. Overall however the council’s behaviour in these respects has not caused the appellant wasted or unnecessary expense. The cost application therefore fails.
Policies referred :
A2, C1, C3, C7, C9, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Interim Guidance Document - Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure SPD Design and Sustainability – Appendices: Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling; Places to Live; Urban Character Study SPD Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards
7/10/2010 Thursden House, Upton Grey EC/08/00700 Upheld
The breach of planning control as alleged in the enforcement notice is: without planning permission the following breaches of planning control have taken place: change of use of the Land from agricultural to residential use the erection of an elevated playhouse on the Land.
The requirements of the notice are, with regard to the breach of planning control, (i) permanently cease the use of the Land for residential purposes and permanently remove all non-agricultural items from the Land; and (ii) permanently remove the elevated play house together with all materials used in its construction from the Land.
4 of 13
For appeal on Ground (d) see BDB/71684 below (Ground (d) states the Appellant must demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice commenced 10-years before the date of issue and has continued)
For the appeal on Ground (a) - deemed planning application: The built form would not be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area by virtue of its siting, which is contrary to the traditional form of the settlement in which the built forms predominantly fronts a highway.
The open countryside, of which the appeal site forms part, contributes to the special interest of the designated area. To allow the deemed application, in whole or part, would not, at a minimum, preserve this character.
Policies referred :
D6, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
7/10/2010 Thursden House, Upton Grey BDB 71684 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The use for which an LDC was sought was the continued use of land as part of the residential garden.
The Appellant must demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach of planning control alleged commenced 10-years before. The decisive factors in dismissing the appeal was that the proof demonstrating that material change of use had taken place prior to the 10 year date was not present, because the submitted written evidence is imprecise and ambiguous. The Appellant’s oral testimony at the Inquiry did not change this.
13/10/2010 The Jennings Yard, Sherborne St John EC/08/00181 Part Allowed
The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission the change of use of the Land from nil use to use as a “builders yard”. The requirements of the notice are to: Permanently cease the use of the Land as a “builders yard”; Permanently remove from the Land all items connected to the use of the Land as a builders yard including, but not limited to, building materials, bricks, slabs, sand, cement, wood and plastics and equipment.
For the Appeal on ground (d) see BDB/71816 (below) – appeals fails For ground (d), the onus is on the appellants to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the change of use alleged in the notice was immune from enforcement action when the notice was issued.
The Appeal on Ground (a) and the deemed planning application – appeal succeeds A characteristic of the area is that buildings are set back from the road, with open space between buildings. This site is small in extent and in an area where the intermixing of residential and builders yard uses has occurred historically, and continues at Thames Dell. If planning permission was granted, conditions could be used to control site layout, the height of stored materials and boundary treatment. The proposed use would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area.
5 of 13 Although no-one is employed on the site, the use is complementary to the local economy.
The proposed use would be sustainable to the extent that it would re-use a brownfield site. It would fall short of the aims of sustainability with regard to accessibility, however, given the small scale of the site and the limitation of its use to the storage of building materials and related equipment, traffic generation is likely to be modest.
The proposal would not materially harm highway safety subject to appropriate conditions, including those addressing maximum vehicle size and changes to the access.
Policies referred :
D5, D8, A2, E1 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
13/10/2010 The Jennings Yard, Sherborne St John BDB 71816 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
This LDC appeal is made on the basis that use as a builders yard was lawful as a result of immunity at the date of the LDC application. The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is a builders yard.
The physical condition of the site and the intentions of the owner is that the use of the site as a builders yard had been abandoned by the time the site was put back into use in 2001, rather than the use merely being dormant.
On the balance of probabilities, the use of the land as a builders yard was not immune from enforcement at the time of the service of the notice or at the date of the LDC application. The Council’s decision to refuse to issue an LDC was sound.
6 of 13 APPENDIX B
17/08/2010 Hyndland, Skippets Lane West, Basingstoke BDB 72197 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of a first floor side extension.
Although an impression of subservience would be partially achieved by a lower roof ridge the effect would be visually countermanded by the eaves extending at exactly the same level. That would create a strident unbroken horizontal feature which would visually exaggerate the width of the proposal and be visible from the road.
The proposed full gable at the back would be inconsistent with the fully hipped roof form of the 2 storey part of host dwelling and present an overly abrupt feature close to the boundary with the access drive to other houses behind.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home
17/08/2010 22 Chiltern Ridge, Hatch Warren BDB 72249 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the conversion of the garage to a habitable room.
There is no indication of any existing shortage of parking or highway congestion in the vicinity of the appeal dwelling as the dwellings round about generally were well provided with their own parking. There would therefore not be any significant increase in risk to highway safety caused by the loss of one parking space.
Policies referred :
A1 & E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
26/08/2010 The Kings Peace, Church Lane, Baughurst BDB 72343 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is raising of the roof over existing family room and office with alterations to dormer windows . The proposed additions are subservient to the house because of their low ridge and eaves heights. The ridge height would be raised only slightly, but the higher eaves and central projecting gable would give the proposed building a noticeably greater bulk and prominence. However the house itself is so tall and grand that the alterations would still be clearly subservient to it.
7 of 13 Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home
27/08/2010 42 Manor Road, Sherborne St John BDB 72288 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is erection of two storey side/rear extension
The plot size is of sufficient size to accommodate this extension whilst retaining adequate private amenity space. The remodelled roof form with its hips, recesses and various openings would provide added visual interest.
The works would deliver a generally beneficial visual improvement that would not be inconsistent within its local setting.
Policies referred :
E1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home SPD Landscape & Biodiversity 2008 Sherborne St John - Village Design Statement
31/08/2010 Headley Common Farm, Headley BDB 71765/71766 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The works proposed are demolition of an existing link between the living room and garage block. Construction of a new link and utility room and conversion of the existing garage block to bedroom accommodation.
The proposed conversion of the garage would substantially increase the extent of modern additions to the original cottage. The glazing of the open bays, and thereby the very evident use of the building as accommodation, would fundamentally alter the relationship between the cottage and the courtyard.
The proposed enlargement of the log store link would erode the existing visual separation between the garage and the sitting room and additional windows would signal its use as accommodation from the north.
A bat survey conducted March 2010 found considerable evidence of bats on the site and within the garage building. The appellant has suggested that permission for the development be granted subject to a condition requiring a further survey. However, without this survey information the extent or likely risk to protected species, or the form and feasibility of any mitigation measures, cannot be assessed.
Policies referred :
E2 & E7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG – The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings
8 of 13 2/09/2010 10 Hackwood Lane, Cliddesden BDB 72425 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is new detached garage, conversion of existing integral garage and new access
The siting and scale of the proposed double garage would have an intrusive and incongruous effect and increase the adverse impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed development would set a precedent for other buildings in front of the building line in Hackwood Lane.
Policies referred :
E1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home
2/09/2010 10a Hackwood Lane, Cliddesden BDB 72431 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is new detached garage and conversion of existing integral garage
The siting and scale of the proposed double garage would have an intrusive and incongruous effect and increase the adverse impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
The proposed development would set a precedent for other buildings in front of the building line in Hackwood Lane.
Policies referred :
E1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home
6/09/2010 Land adjacent to Old Forge Stores BDB 71635 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is erection of a three bedroom dwelling with detached single garage and associated access, parking and landscaping
The proposed house would be clearly visible from the B3051 and, along with its garage, would be visible from Ashford Hill Road to the west of Stanley Villa
The buildings would significantly add to the amount of built development near to the junction of Ashford Hill Road.
9 of 13 The gap between buildings would give the area a denser more suburban character and appearance
Policies referred :
E1, E2, C1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Ashford Hill with Headley Village Design Statement S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure
14/09/2010 Land at Greenway, Basingstoke BDB 71798 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is a new dwelling – 2 bedroom chalet style.
The proposal would set the property in a sideways position in relation to the road and be well back into the plot so that it would fail to respect the building line on its side of the road.
It would represent an incongruous and rather cramped and contrived form of development that would be inconsistent with the general pattern of built development within Greenway.
The rather awkward off street car parking arrangement would be overly prominent in visual terms and detrimental to the broader street scene.
The potential back to back relationship between existing and proposed houses and the fact that the appeal site occupies a slightly elevated position means that the rear elevation of the proposed house would be readily visible from the backs of the terraced houses, and would be rather overbearing from the small rear garden areas associated with those dwellings.
Policies referred :
A2, C1, C9, D5, E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST)
16/09/2010 55 Centurion Way, Basingstoke BDB 71869 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is change of use of land to residential land enclosed by a 1.8 metre high fence (Retrospective)
There is no compelling argument to suggest that the former alignment of the rear fence was so awkward to seriously impair the reasonable enjoyment of the property, or represented a security risk that might threaten the wellbeing of occupants, and thereby represent some sort of justification for the proposal.
The case exposes an important principle, namely that public open space is provided as an entity for full public enjoyment and is not there to be eroded by unilateral private actions designed to work to the advantage of an individual or family over the broader
10 of 13 public interest. Whilst the actual parcel of land is quite modest in dimensions and represents only a very small fraction of the overall public open space area, this does not represent a compelling argument for setting the principle aside.
Policies referred :
E1, E6, C7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Urban Character Study
22/09/2010 5 The Pellows, Kingsclere, Newbury BDB 72516 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is to reduce the height by 20% of Lawson cypress trees 1 and 3, and fell Lawson cypress tree number 2 . The trees make a small but significant contribution to the treescape and enhance the visual amenity of the locality
The proposed reduction in height of trees 1 and 3 would make the trees less visible from surrounding areas and would diminish the contribution they make to the treescape and visual amenity.
The felling of tree 2 would be of no benefit to the appellant and would eliminate its attractive contrasting foliage.
Policies referred :
Policy 3 and 4 of the Tree Policy
27/09/2010 Patricias Cottage, Bramley Corner, Bramley BDB 72326 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is erection of single storey rear extension.
The proposal would give the end part of the proposed extension substantial bulk at roof level, which would result in a disproportionate addition to the host building.
The rear extension would not be subservient to the main part of the building. This would harm the character and appearance of the existing building.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending Your Home
05/10/2010 45a Queens Road, Basingstoke BDB 66852 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is extension to form dwelling.
11 of 13 The proposal would project a significant distance from the host building and would appear as an elongated and discordant addition, out of keeping with the visual cohesion of the area. The siting and design of the proposed extension would sit uncomfortably with the proportions of the existing end-terraced two storey building, and would harm the streetscene.
An additional residential unit would be likely to add significantly to the demand for parking. It would be likely that the occupiers of, and visitors to, the proposed new dwelling would at times park on-street and exacerbate local congestion.
Whilst some flood mitigation measures have been suggested by the appellant, the absence of a flood risk assessment is a consideration that also weighs against allowing the appeal.
Policies referred :
E1 & E3 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Conservation Areas; Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling Brookvale West Conservation Area Appraisal
21/10/2010 Birdwood House, Heatherwold, Newtown BDB 72472 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is to extend kitchen to the back of the property by 2.5m, extend the existing garage and utility room to the back of the property by 0.76m and erect a pitched roof over the garage and utility to replace the existing flat roof.
The front elevation to the remodelled side section would be set back behind the main front elevation to the house; the proposed pitched roof would slope up away from the road and the ridge; the eaves would be substantially lower than those on the main house; the increase to the footprint would be modest and mainly to the rear of the building. These features would ensure that the extended side section would be subservient to the main house and that the pitched roof would have a satisfactory appearance in relation to it.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending your home
22/10/2010 Meadow House, Ashford Hill, Thatcham BDB 72706 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the construction of a building consisting of two car ports, a store and a studio following demolition of existing buildings.
The proposed outbuilding has been designed so that its roof ridge and eaves would be lower than those on the house. The perceived bulk of the outbuilding would be reduced by the variation in ridge heights and the use of open fronted garage bays. It would be separated from the house by several metres and slightly further away from the house than the garage and garden room which it would replace. The footprint of
12 of 13 the outbuilding would not be excessive in relation to that of the house or when compared to the buildings it would replace.
The proposal would not appear as an overly prominent feature when viewed from within the appeal site, or when viewed from Pithouse Lane or across the pond. Nor would it dominate or detract from the main east and south facing elevations to the house. It would have the appearance of a subservient outbuilding.
Policies referred :
E2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
29/10/2010 6 Tamarisk Close, Hatch Warren BDB 72434 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is a garage extension and porch.
The proposed long narrow garage is not only poor design in its own right, but would look entirely out of place. It would particularly stand out in front of the building line and be very noticeable from the southern neighbours as these stand higher than No 6.
Policies referred :
E1 & A1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design and Sustainability – Extending your home and replacement dwellings SPD – Residential Parking Standards
13 of 13