working hours, there will be signifcant availability of parking space on the BG Group rCampus for anv other communitv use outside of these hours-when spaces used during the day by employees are vacaied. The use of the site only by the BG group between the hours of 7am-7pm can be secured by condition and the applicant has indicated willingness to accept such a condition (Condition 7).
15. The Highway Authority considers that the community uses outside of the above hours are unlikely to generate any unsuitably high demand upon the network due to the unconditioned hours being outside of peak network hours. The BG Group campus has a very significant number of parking spaces which would be available to external users at these times. On this basis the Highway Authority do not consider that a condition restricting the numbers or type of community uses will be necessary.
16. The BG Group Travel Plan will need to be updated to reflect the changes in car parking to ensure that sustainable modes of travel continue to be promoted. It should also assess transport options to the new recreational use which could be used outside normal working hours.
17. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions (4, 5, 6, and 7) and as such the scheme is considered to accord with policy CP6 of the Core Strategy.
Trees and Landscapes:
18. The Landscape Architect has no objection to the proposed multi-use recreational space. It is considered that the proposal will not have any additional visual or physical impact on the wider river valley landscape to the north of the site over that of the previous uses on the site.
19. The Landscape Architect considers that as much of the existing landscaping as possible will need to be retained and can be enhanced through additional planting especially on the site boundaries adjacent to the river valley landscape. This can be dealt with by a landscape condition which is included as recommended condition 8.
Environment Aqencv response:
20. A Flood Risk Assessment has accompanied the report and the Environment Agency is satisfied with its contents and has recommended condition 9 & 10 relating to provision of full details of SUDS to be provided and a precautionary water contamination condition. As the Environment Agency is satisfied that the proposals will not impact significantly upon flood risk it is considered that the proposals accord with PPS25.
Environmental Health:
21. The Environmental Health department raise no objection to the proposals as such the proposals are considered compliant with PPS23 (Pollution Control) and PPS24 (Noise).
Ecoloqy:
22. The proposal was accompanied by an ecological report (focusing on reptiles) which has been considered by the Borough Ecologist. The Borough Ecologist is satisfied with the adequacy of the report and does not require any additional survey / work to be undertaken. As such the proposal is considered ti comply with PPS9, - I
CONCLUSION
The application for new ancillary sports facilities adjacent to the existing BG Group Campus provides a valuable and modern facility for the employer. The site of the proposed facilities would be located within a Major Development Location and is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact upon amenity, the character of the area or highway safety, as such the proposal is considered consistent with the Core Strategy and is'therefore recommended for approval.
CONTACT DETAILS Service Telephone Ernail Development 01 18 974 6445 / 6447 [email protected] Management g-0
---
NO:
, - FR0M:AshIey Smith Telephone: 01 18 974 6445
DATE: 23 August 201 1
I Earlev CONSULTATION SHEET
Application Number: Fl201111741
Proposal: Proposed change of use of current potentially unused, undesignated land to a rnulti use recreational space. This to incorporate a running track, sprint track, tennis courts and volleyball court, in association with a new pavilion building to include changinglshower rooms and multipurpose room with associated car parking..
Site Address: 100, Thames Valley Park Drive, Sonning
Applicant: Mr Chris May, BG Group (c/o Concept 4) C/O JPB Architects (Mr John Broderick).
Your observations are required in respect of this application by 20/09/2011.
Please note that as well as sending comments by post you can also submit them by; Email to: [email protected] or
SIGNED: ~7~ DATE: /plsrk To EaiIiParishilown Council. APPEAL MONITORING REPORT - OCTOBER 201 1
Appeal Results for the period 01.10.2011 - 31.10.2011
Appeal Type Allowed Part Dismissed Total allowed and Part Dismissed
Public Inquiry 0 0 0 0
Informal Hearings 0 0 0 0
Written 0 1 4 5 Representations
All 0 I 4 5 (20%) (80%)
Appeal Results -Application Details
PARISH: CHARVIL Application Number : F1201111078 Officer : NICK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 25/10/2011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Patel Site Location; 72 The Hawthorns Cha~il Proposal : Conversion of loft space to create habitable accommodation to dwelling, with rear dormer window extensions (obscure glazed), roof lights and alteration of part of existing roof to form a rear- facing gable.
PARISH: HURST Application Number : Fl201012416 Officer : ASHLEY SMITH Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 1411 012011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Saad Audeh Site Location; Marchfield House Forest Road Binfield Proposal : Proposed vehicular site entrance to northern boundary via Monks Alley PARISH: WOKINGHAM Applicatiom-Number : F/201111295 Officer : NlCK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 2511012011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Adrian Gray Site Location; 59 Plough Lane Wokingham Proposal : Demolition of conservatory and detached garage, erection of a two storey rearlside extension and single storey side extension, plus raising of roof to create habitable accommodation to dwelling.
PARISH: WOKINGHAM Application Number : Fl201111034 Officer : NlCK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL PART ALLOWED AND PART DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date :2511 01201 1 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mrs Laura Wiard Site Location; 85 Oxford Road Wokingham Proposal : First floor side and single storey rear extensions to dwelling
PARISH: WOKINGHAM WITHOUT Application Number : F1201111089 Officer : ASHLEY SMITH Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 1311 01201 1 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr & Mrs P Larkins Site Location; 19 Rowan Drive Crowthorne Proposal : Proposed erection of first floor side and front extension including single storey rear and front extensions, plus conversion of existing loft space with creation of two front dormer windows. The Planning ,,,,,,, Inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site "isit made on 18 October 2011 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 October 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/D/11/2159776 72 The Hawthorns, Charvil, Reading, Berkshire, RGlO 9TS. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Patel against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. . The application Ref F/2011/1078, dated 29 November 2010, was refused by notice dated 8 July 2011. The development proposed is described as 'loft conversion with dormer windows and rear hip roof to gable end'.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The description of the development refers to a 'rear hip roof to gabble end'. The rear elevation does not have a hipped roof. It does, however, have a 'cat's slide' roof into which is set a dormer window. The application drawings show that it is proposed to alter that part of the roof to a gable end. I have proceeded to determine the appeal on that basis. Main Issues 3. 1 consider the main issues in this case are: (a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property as well as that of the surrounding area; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers to the north. Reasons Character and appearance
4. The property the subject of the appeal, number 72 The Hawthorns, is located in a relatively recent residential development of generally detached dwellings. Although designed with a common palette of details and materials, by reason of careful layout and detailing the properties do not have a uniform or regimented appearance. I saw that rooflights and dormers are a common Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2159776
feature in a number of the dwellings. Indeed, although a substantial house, number 72 is of a one and a half storey design which due to its low eaves line incorporates dormer windows to serve some first floor rooms, both to the front and rear of the property. 5. The appellant proposes forming a new second floor to provide additional accommodation within the roof void. This would be achieved by introducing a new gable and two new dormers to the rear and four rooflights to the front roof slope. 6. The four rooflights to the front elevation would be sited high on the roof and above the three existing dormer windows. In this respect the arrangement would be unusual. Nevertheless, the rooflights would relate well to the established fenestration pattern. However, the windows proposed would be 0.978 metres deep and 0.780 metres wide. Iconsider that because of their overall size and elevated location they would be visually dominant and thereby harmful to both the appearance of the dwelling and, albeit from limited public vantage points, the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 7. The replacement of the section of 'cat's slide' roof to the rear elevation with a gable would change the character of the dwelling when viewed from the rear, giving it more presence. However, the ridge of the new gable roof would be set below that of the main roof and therefore subservient to it. In my opinion, therefore, this element of the proposal would not have a materially harmful effect on the dwelling. 8. The two new dormers would, in a number of respects identified by the appellant, comply with the design advice set out in the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled Guidelines for Extending Your Home. However, they would relate poorly to the existing fenestration pattern. In addition, on a dwelling where the established roof design is one of gables, their hipped roof form, would lead them to appear as incongruous, jarring additions. Iconsider, therefore, that due to their siting, three dimensional form and elevated position, the proposed dormers would detract from the architectural integrity of the dwelling. Furthermore, although public vantage points are limited, the dormers would, nevertheless, be visible and would by reason of their design and siting cause harm to the surrounding area. 9. I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of both the property and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of Policy CC6 of the South East Plan and Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted 29 January 2010) (CS DPD) as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of design and the contribution of new development to a sense of place. Living conditions 10. The Council's Supplementary Planning Document, Wokingham Borough Council Design Guide 1. Residential Design (SPD), recommends a separation distance of 22.0 metres between two storey dwellings and 26.0 metres where one is more than two storeys, as in this case, to maintain privacy and limit the sense of enclosure. The Council states, and this is not disputed, that the separation distance to,the rear of number 88 is just shy of 21.0 metres. The SPD is only Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2159776
for guidance, and in some cases the separation distance provided may well be adequate. Nevertheless, Iconsider that the dormer windows here would give rise to a perception of overlooking because of the slight fall in levels between numbers 72 and 88, the contrast in height of number 72 when compared to the rear of number 88, the elevated position of the dormer windows and lack of screening to the boundary. 11. I note that the appellant has proposed that the dormer windows should be obscure glazed. However, to avoid overlooking the window to the bedroom would also need to be fixed closed. In my opinion, as the dormer window would be the principal amenity of the b-edroom, save for a rooflight in the front roof slope, obscure glazing the window and fixing closed the casements here would be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers. Furthermore, obscure glazing and the fixing shut of the windows would fail to overcome the perception of overlooking. 12. Iconclude in respect of the second main issue that although the new dormer windows are only to serve a bedroom and staircase, and therefore likely to be used less intensively than other habitable rooms, the proposal would nevertheless cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 88 The Hawthorns. The proposal, therefore, would not accord with the objectives of CS DPD Policies CP1 and CP3 as they relate to, along with other things, the protection of the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Conclusions
13. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Phi@ WiLiimer
INSPECTOR The Planning ,,,,,, ,,,,,, lnspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 May 2011 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14 October 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/A/11/2149258 Marchfield House, Forest Road, Binfield, Berkshire RG42 5HB . The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Saad Audeh against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. The application Ref F/2010/2416, dated 22 October 2010, was refused by notice dated 22 December 2010. The development proposed is described as "Vehicular site entrance to northern boundary via Monks Alley. Resubmission of refused application F/2010/0745."
Decision .
1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The decision notice describes the location of the appeal site as "The Lodge, Marchfield House". However, the appeal proposal relates to Marchfield House itself. I have therefore described the location of the appeal site accordingly, consistent with the application form and appeal form. I have also used the property's postcode, as it appears on the application form, rather than that shown on the appeal form.
3. This appeal was originally to be determined by means of the Household Appeal Service (HAS) where there is no opportunity for the parties to make further comments once the required appeal documents have been submitted. As I needed to obtain the parties' comments with regard to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area the appeal was taken out of HAS and determined as a conventional appeal. I am deciding the appeal on the information before me and from what I saw when I visited the site on 25 May 2011. Main Issues 4. Notwithstanding the reasons for refusal, the Council has since stated that they are satisfied with the findings of the appellant's Great Crested Newt Site Assessment report. This concluded that, due to the lack of any refuge on the site and the limited extent of the works proposed, there would be very low risk Appeal Decision APP/X0360/A/11/2149258
to the local Great Crested Newt population. Ihave no reason to doubt these findings.
5. Therefore, and mindful also of the reasons for refusal given for the earlier, similar application (Ref F/2010/0745) and third party comments, Iconsider the main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) highway safety. Reasons Character and Appearance 6. Monks Alley provides vehicular access to a number of large, detached dwellings along its eastern stretch from its junction with Wick's Green. Nevertheless, at a point immediately prior to the proposed site entrance, it reduces in width and adopts the significantly more rural character of a narrower, unmade bridleway and countryside footpath, lined with overhanging trees and hedgerows to one side. 7. Although there is a vehicular access to Elm Tree Cottage close to the proposed entrance, it has only a pair of simple, timber gates supported on timber posts. These reflect the countryside character of Monks Alley as it progresses in a westerly direction, and mark a significant change from the slightly more urbanised frontages to the dwellings leading up to this point, including the entrance to Orchard Cottage, a short distance to the east. In contrast, Ifind that the use of substantial brick piers and railings, particularly when combined with the uncharacteristic swept entrance path that would be needed to compensate for the limited width of Monks Alley, would introduce an unacceptable degree of urbanisation that would significantly detract from area's rural charm at this point.
8. Whilst Irecognise the appellant's efforts to reduce the scale and impact of the entrance in comparison to that previously proposed, Iconsider that the form and appearance of this revised proposal would fail to satisfactorily integrate with its immediate surroundings. In this regard it would conflict with criteria a) and f) of Policy CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (2010). High way Safety 9. Despite the unmade surface to Monks Alley in part, there appears to be no constraint upon vehicular access up to the point where it narrows adjacent to the proposed entrance to Marchfield House. Furthermore, contrary to a suggestion by the neighbouring Bracknell Forest Council's Highways Department there is an existing pedestrian gate from Monks Alley leading into the appeal site, up to which point vehicles could approach. There is nothing to suggest that this could not be used for delivery purposes of some limited nature. LO. The appellant argues that the access would be for staff serving the maintenance of the grounds and that in any event it would only be a secondary access, with the main entrance retained from Forest Road. The proposal shows that the access would serve 3 parking spaces. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that the level and nature of vehicle movements that would be associated with it would not merely compare with traffic movements Appeal Decision APP/XO360/A/11/2149258
associated with any other dwelling along Monks Alley, some of which are also set within extensive grounds. Therefore, whilst I recognise that there are limited passing places, and that the surface to Monks Alley is shared between vehicles, horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians, I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in any significant intensification of use that would adversely impact upon safety along its length. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that visibility into and out of the access would be unacceptable, or that there would be any unacceptable intensification of traffic movements at the junction of Monks Alley with Wick's Green that would be hazardous. 11. Overall therefore, despite the strong levels of opposition linked to traffic intensification and highway safety, based upon the information before me, I find that there would be no material conflict with the requirement of criteria b) of Policy CP3 to provide for an accessible and safe scheme. Neither do I find conflict with the aim of Core Strategy Policy CP6 to ensure that development does not cause highway problems, especially with regard to road safety. .Other Matters 12. I have carefully considered all the other concerns expressed by third parties. The need, or otherwise, for the proposed second access is not directly relevant to the planning merits of this proposal. Neither are matters relating to land ownership or legal rights of access. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would have any impact upon matters relating to flooding. Neither do I consider that the proposal would result in any level of activity that would be harmful to the living conditions of any nearby occupiers by reason of noise or disturbance. 13. I have had regard to the fact that Marchfield House is a listed building. Nevertheless, due to the remote distance from the proposed access to the dwelling, I share the Council's view that there would be no harm to the special interest of the building's setting.
Conclusion 14. Despite my findings with regard to highway safety, Iconclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.
John DAGGdn
INSPECTOR The Planning .,,,,, .,,,,, Inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2011 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 October 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/D/11/2159671 59 Plough Lane, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 IRQ. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Adrian Gray against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. The application Ref F/2011/1295, dated 17 lune 2011, was refused by notice dated 18 August 2011. The development proposed is for the demolition of a conservatory and detached garage. . New two storey rear extension, attached garage and first floor extension.
Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. Iconsider that the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The property, 59 Plough Lane, a detached bungalow, is located on the corner of Buttercup Close and Plough Lane. The area is characterised by a mix of dwellings of differing ages and styles. The majority, however, appeared, unlike number 59, to have accommodation over two floors. I saw that the bungalow form of number 59 contrasts quite starkly with the neighbouring two storey houses which now form its backdrop when viewed from the street. Further, number 59 will, when Carillons estate currently under construction, is complete, sit on an island site between the access to Buttercup Close, a small and relatively recent development of detached houses, and the cycle/pedestrian access to the new estate of houses. In this respect, therefore, it will occupy an even more prominent location than it does now. 4. In addition to a side and rear extension the appellant proposes altering the roof to provide bedroom and bathroom accommodation at first floor level. The dwelling when extended and altered would have the appearance of a chalet, similar in its style, form and general modelling to that of the property on the opposite corner of Buttercup Close and Plough Lane, number 53. Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2159671
5. If the proposed development were to go ahead it would fundamentally change the character of the original bungalow. In my judgement, therefore, Iconsider that it is the overall design of the building when completed and its appearance in the street scene and the wider area that are the principal considerations here, rather than the subservience of any particular element of the proposal or the preservation of architectural integrity of the original building which, in itself, has limited architectural merit. 6. Ican see the attraction to the designer of adopting the form and design detailing of number 53. However, in my opinion, this would not result in a high quality design here by reason of, amongst other things, the contrived form of the roof and what Ifind would appear as an amalgam of different roof forms (gable, partial hip and full hipped) together with the staggered eaves lines proposed. In my view, because of its design, the building as extended and altered would result in visual harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. Further, having regard to the eclectic mix of architectural styles that prevail in the locality, there is no justifiable reason to replicate any particular architectural style. In fact by trying to do so the designer has not, in my opinion, taken the opportunity afforded by the development of this prominent site to make a positive contribution to the sense of place that could result from a high quality design. 7. Iconclude that the proposed development would, if it were to go ahead, cause significant harm to the street scene and therefore the wider area contrary to the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted 29 January 2010) as they require, along with other things, development to be of a high quality of design and to contribute to a sense of place. Conclusions 8. For the reasons given above and having 'regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Philip Wilier
INSPECTOR The Planning B Inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2011 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 October 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/D/11/2159667 85 Oxford Road, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 2YH. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mrs Laura Wiard against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. . The application Ref F/2011/1034, dated 16 May 2011, was refused by notice dated 11 July 2011. The development proposed is described as 'a first floor side extension and single storey rear extension and dropped curb'.
Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the first floor side extension and planning permission is refused for the first floor side extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 85 Oxford Road, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 2YH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref F/2011/1034, dated 16 May 2011, and the plans submitted with it so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1)The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawings numbered: 2648/1, 3, 4, 5, 10 and the site location plan scale 1:1250 dated 13 May 2011. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural matters 2. The Council has stated in its evidence that the works of dropping the kerb do not in its opinion require planning permission and are therefore outside the scope of the application, now the subject of this appeal, as they would need to be carried out by the highway authority. I shall therefore consider this appeal on that basis. Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2159667
Main Issue 3. I consider that the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider area. Reasons 4. The appeal property, number 85 Oxford Road, a one and a half storey chalet bungalow, is one of a number of detached dwellings dating from the inter-war years situated on the east side of Oxford Road. In contrast to number 85, the neighbouring property number 87 to the north, is, when viewed from the street and in terms of its height, a fairly small bungalow. 5. A modest single storey rear extension is proposed. The Council raises no objection to this element of the development and from what I have seen and read Ifind no reason to form a contrary view. This part of the proposal would therefore accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted 29 January 2010) (CS DPD). 6. However, the appellant also proposes the removal of an existing mono-pitch dormer, which Isaw is a feature of some of these chalet bungalows, and the construction of a first floor side extension over existing single storey side projections on the north side of the dwelling. 7. The ridge line of the proposed side extension has been designed to line through with that of the main chalet, whereas that of the projection to the southern side is set significantly lower. The introduction of a further roof here would result in yet another eaves line and the new roof would be of a relatively shallow depth when compared with that of the opposing southerly projection. Notwithstanding that the existing and proposed side projections would be staggered, because of the design of the new side extension, the dwelling as extended would, in my judgement, appear as an uncomfortable amalgam of poorly related forms that would cause significant visual harm to the architectural integrity of the original dwelling. 8. The loss of the characteristic side dormer is to be regretted. However, in itself, I do not consider this alone would be sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal. It does, however, add weight to my overall concerns in respect of the quality of the design. 9. By reason of the stepped set-back of the properties from the road, the open aspect of the front gardens and the existing side projections to numbers 85 and 87 being single storey, the development here appears relatively open in character. The addition of a first floor extension on the north side of number 85, as designed, would significantly reduce the visual separation between the properties, leading to number 85 appearing to dominate the neighbouring bungalow. This would result in such a loss of openness as to cause material harm to the character and appearance of the street scene as well as the wider area. 10.1 note from the appellant's evidence that plans are currently being prepared for the replacement of the bungalow at number 87 with a two storey house. While Appeal Decision APP/XO360/D/11/2159667
any development next door would be likely to change the setting of number 85, it would be unlikely to have any significant impact on my concerns in respect of the design of the side extension which I find compelling. 11.1 conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed first floor side extension would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host building and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene and wider surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the aims of CS DPD Policies CP1 and CP3 as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of design and the contribution of development to a sense of place. Conditions and Conclusion 12.In accordance with the Council's suggestion and in addition to the standard time condition I shall, in order to ensure a high quality development, impose a condition requiring the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces to match those of the existing dwelling. For the,avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, I shall also require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
13.1 consider that the two parts of the proposal are clearly severable, being physically and functionally independent and that a split decision is, therefore, appropriate. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the support, identified by the appellant, for the development from the occupiers of number 87 Oxford Road, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed as it relates to the first floor side extension, but should be allowed in so far as it relates to the single storey rear extension.
Philip WiGGmer
INSPECTOR The Planning ,,,,,, ,,,,,, Inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2011
by Megan Thomas BA Hons in Law, Barrister an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 13 October 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/D/11/2157818 19'Rowan Drive, Crowthorne, Berkshire ~~456RY The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs P Larkins against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. The application Ref F/2011/1089, dated 23 May 2011, was refused by notice dated 27 July 2011. The development proposed is a 'resubmission of F/2010/1961 - erection of first floor side and front extension including single storey rear and front extensions. Conversion of existing loft space including two front dormer windows."
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in the settlement of Crowthorne on Rowan Drive. It is situated near a corner and is set back off the main thoroughfare behind a small island along with 21, 23 and 25 Rowan Drive. It is a semi-detached bungalow with its semi-pair being no.21. In the immediate vicinity of the site there are several semi-detached bungalows of similar appearance. Some of them have been extended and have dormer windows.
4. The proposed development is for a single storey front extension, a rear extension and the creation of accommodation in the roof extending over the flat roofed garage incorporating a pair of front dormer windows. To my mind the bulk and mass that would be generated at the eastern end of the bungalow above the existing flat-roofed garage adjacent to no.17 would detrimentally affect the appearance of the street. There have been extensions at no.17 at its western side with the result that the built development of no.17 is close to the boundary with the appeal site. The fact that no.17 is also further forward in the streetscene than the appeal site would exacerbate the cluttered appearance of the area. The lack of a step-in at first floor level would mean that the important and characteristic visual gap between nos 17 and 19 would be lost. It is already Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2157818
eroded by the complex and somewhat dominant roof profiles at no.17 and so its protection is made all the more important. In coming to this view Ihave borne -in mind that the appeal site is concealed by no.17 when approaching from the east, but it is clearly seen when heading south down Rowan Drive, passing Belmont Road. Thus it is a common view. 5. I agree with the Council that the proposed rear extension would have a ridge height similar to the existing bungalow and would not be very visible from Rowan Drive. As such it does no material harm to the character of the area, and as it does not extend significantly into the rear garden, it does not unduly affect the living conditions of the occupants of no.21. 6. The introduction of dormer windows in the roof would not be out of keeping with other bungalows in the street and the particular design of the dormers with their pitched roofs would also be sympathetic to the host dwelling and its semi- pair. The single storey portion of the front extension would be about l.lm further forward than the existing single storey projection. However, that increased bulk would not unbalance the appearance of the two semis together as there is already a front projection at no.21. There is no need in my view to have perfect symmetry but there is a need to ensure that the resulting design is pleasing and proportionate. It is the eastern end of the proposed development at first floor level which would create too much bulk and give the appearance of cramped development shoehorned into the corner of the site. The spatial relationship between 19 and 17 is important and its further erosion should be avoided in my view. 7. I conclude therefore that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to policy CP3 of Wokingham Core Strategy and Supplementary Planning Guidance 82 Guidelines for Extending Your Home. 8. Having taken into account all representations made, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Negan Thomas
INSPECTOR QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE October 2011
RFS CASES 1 July - 30 September 2011
Number received 153
Number closed 152
% closed in 8 weeks 61 %
Number on hand on 30 Sep 204
Reasons for closure Number % Other 13 9% No breach of planning control 89 57% Not expedient to pursue 5 3% Voluntary compliance 31 21 % Details submitted (ea." minor amendment. details I pursuant to conditions, planning application) 14 10%
- --
SUMMARY OF NOTICESIPROSECUTION for period 1 July - 30 September 2011
Enforcement Notices 5
Stop Notices 0 I Temporary Stop Notices 0 I Breach of Condition Notices 1 I Section 215 Notices 0 I Prosecutions 0 I Direct Action 0 1 -travellers at Injunctions Highfield park
Planning Contravention Notices 19 APPEALS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICES 1 Julv - 30 Sep 2011
Number of enforcement appeals lodged: 2 Number of enforcement notice appeals determined: 8 Number of appeals withdrawn: 0
SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL DECISIONS
Reference: RFS/2011100299 Address: 19 Shepherds Hill, Earley Breach of planning control: the material change of use of land from woodland to residential garden Appeal outcome: Two appeals both dismissed.
Inspector's findings: Notwithstanding the Appellant's claims the lnspector found that the breach of planning control had occurred. That the erection of fencing and planting of non-native species are integral to the material change of use and the notice quite rightly requires their removal. Ttie lnspector deleted the requirement for planting a hedgerow but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Reference: RFS/2011/00255 Address: Land to the rear of 21-25 Shepherds Hill, Earley Breach of planning control: the material change of use from woodland to residential garden. Appeal outcome: Three appeals all dismissed.
Inspector's findings: That the land had been used as a residential garden and its character had changed from an area of undeveloped countryside in the form of woodland with a dense green cover to a fenced grassed area which was being maintained as a domestic garden. The requirements to remove fencing were upheld although the requirement for a hedgerow was deleted from the notice.
Reference: RFS/2009/00264 Address: 27-31 Shepherds Hill, Earley Breach of planning control: the change of use of land from woodland to garden and the erection of an extension, a shed and an outbuilding Appeal outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Inspector's findings: The lnspector found that the unauthorised use of the land and the unauthorised extension, outbuilding, fencing and hardstanding had an unacceptable impact on visual amenities and on the living conditions of the neighbour.
Reference: RFS/2007/00089a Address: East Court Farm, Finchampstead Breach of planning control: Failure to comply with agricultural occupancy conditions Appeal outcome: Two appeals dismissed
Inspector's findings: The lnspector found that the dwelling had been occupied in contravention of the agricultural occupancy condition and dismissed the appeal. Enforcement Seminar - for Borough and TownlParish Councillors took place on 27 September 201 1.
Before and after photos MFS Countryside Store. Hare Hatch Cross Roads (unauthorised in Green Belt) Before
-After Countrv Cottase, Hiqh Street Sonninq Before (unauthorised velux window on a listed building) 17 Hvde End Road (unauthorised staircase workshop in ~arden) Before - noisev toolslmachinew visible)
After (machinewltools removed)
Report Author: Marcia Head ext 6447