Mulberry Lodge Popeswood Road Binfield Bracknell Berkshire RG42

ITEM NO: 06 Application No. Ward: Date Registered: Target Decision Date: 08/00680/FUL Binfield With Warfield 24 July 2008 18 September 2008 Site Address: Mulberry Lodge Popeswood Road Binfield Bracknell Berkshire RG42 4AD Proposal: Single storey extension to form bedroom and ensuite bathroom Applicant: Ms Brenda Wilson Agent: Mr John Letton Case Officer: Sarah Horwood, 01344 352000 [email protected]

Site Location Plan ( for identification purposes only, not to scale )

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

1 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (If Any)

03/00347/FUL Validation Date: 03.04.2003 Erection of 1no. three bedroomed detached bungalow accessed from Popeswood Road following demolition of existing outbuilding. Section 106 unilateral undertaking dated 18.12.03 (appeal dismissed) Refused

04/00530/FUL Validation Date: 26.05.2004 Erection of 1no. detached two bedroom bungalow accessed from Popeswood Road following demolition of existing outbuildings. Refused

05/00970/FUL Validation Date: 13.10.2005 Erection of 1no. detached two bedroom bungalow accessed from Popeswood Road, following demolition of existing outbuildings. Approved

Appeal Erection of 1no. detached two bedroom bungalow accessed Validation Date: from Popeswood Road following demolition of existing 03.09.2004 outbuildings. Reference: Appeal Allowed 04/00054/REF

2 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

Key to abbreviations BSP Berkshire Structure Plan 2001 – 2016

BFBLP Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan BFBCS Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Submission) RMLP Replacement Minerals Local Plan WLP Waste Local Plan for Berkshire SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SPD Supplementary Planning Document

RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (also known as the South East Plan)

PPG (No.) Planning Policy Guidance (Published by DCLG)

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

PPS (No.) Planning Policy Statement (Published by DCLG) MPG Minerals Planning Guidance DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

Note: The BSP and the BFBLP contain some policies with the same title, e.g. EN1. In such cases, the policy will be suffixed with an “_S” for the BSP and an “L” for the BFBLP, e.g. EN1_S, EN1L..

Plan Policy Description (May be abbreviated)

BFBLP EN20 Design Considerations In New Development

BFBLP M9 Vehicle And Cycle Parking

BFBCS CS7 Design

3 CONSULTATIONS (Comments may be abbreviated)

Landscape and Arboricultural Officer

There is a tree off-site 7.2 metres from existing building. Proposed development is within the RPA of the tree. Further details on tree protection & construction methods are required in order to fully assess impact on tree.

Parish Or Town Council

Binfield Parish Council considered no objection to the application.

4 REPRESENTATIONS

1no. letter of representation received which raises the following issues:- - Glenask House has a shared access with Mulberry Lodge who will be erecting a fence in the near future which means that current parking arrangements allowing for turning in front of Mulberry Lodge will be essential. No building should be allowed on the existing parking areas. - The current density of the site is high with only a small garden area and a further extension would exceed normal density levels. - Note in planning documents that various areas around the house are proposed as storage areas and wonder if these are to be lost. - Assume that the application will not cause the loss of any trees.

1no. letter of objection received which raises the following issues:- - Richmond has a very private garden. - The building at Mulberry Lodge is larger than anything that should have been granted. Increasing its size should therefore not be allowed. - An increase would bring more cars to the house. Car parking on site is close to the boundary with Richmond and is noisy at present.

A further letter of representation was received from the agent in support of the application:- - The owner/occupier of the property requires the proposed extension in order to provide for special circumstances which have recently changed dramatically in respect of Miss Wilson's health. - Further, Miss Wilson's mother lives at the property and requires respite care. In the future, a live in carer will be needed which would require a further bedroom at the property.

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

- In answer to concerns raised by neighbours in Glenask House, no parking or trees will be lost and the proposed extension will not be visible by any party outside the site. - The construction will be the same, possibly higher standards of insulation and sustainability as the original house.

5 OFFICER REPORT

Summary Of Key Aspects Of The Proposal (If Any)

This application is reported to the Planning and Highways Committee as the applicant is a Member of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

i. PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension forming master bedroom with an en-suite bathroom. The proposed extension would create a floor area of 33 square metres with a flat roof at a height of 3.3m to match the ridge height of the host dwelling.

ii. SITE

Mulberry Lodge is a new build single storey flat roofed dwelling sited to the rear of Glenask House and Rillamill. The surrounding area is residential, characterised by a mix of styles of properties. The application site is accessed via a shared drive with Glenask House from Popeswood Road. There is a 1.8m high close boarded fence denoting the common boundaries with both Glenask House to the north east and Richmond to the west of the site.

iii. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Principle of development

The application site is located within the Defined Settlement as designated under the Bracknell Forest Borough proposals maps and as such the principle of development is considered to be acceptable, subject to no adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the host dwelling or highway safety implications.

2. Impact on the character and appearance of surrounding area

The proposed single storey rear extension would create an additional floor area of 33 square metres which would equate to a 28.7% increase in floor area of the host dwelling. It is acknowledged that the plot size of Mulberry Lodge is smaller than surrounding residential dwellings along Popeswood Road but the proposed single storey extension would not represent an overdevelopment of the site that would be considered detrimental to the character of the area, given the proposal would be sited to the rear of the dwelling and would not appear visible within the street scene. The private and most useable amenity space to Mulberry Lodge is a patio area along the eastern elevation of the dwelling which would not be affected as part of the proposal and there is existing landscaping along the boundaries of the site.

The proposed single storey rear extension would appear sympathetic to the host dwelling, with a flat roof to match that of the existing dwelling, matching fenestration and rendered paintwork.

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited along the southern boundary of the application site, approximately 60m from Popeswood Road. The proposed extension would not project beyond the established building line of the host dwelling along the eastern flank wall and would therefore not appear visually prominent within the street scene.

The Council's Landscape and Arboricultural Officer was consulted on the application. No comments were available at the time of writing the report.

3. Effect on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties

The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited 27m from the rear elevation of Glenask House at the closest point. A set of windows are proposed in the east elevation serving the master bedroom. It is considered that the proposed windows would not result in an undue level of overlooking to the occupiers of Glenask House in view of the separation distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property. Further, the 1.8m high close boarded fence denoting the common boundary between Mulberry Lodge and Glenask House would minimise the visual prominence of the single storey extension - 1.5m of the extension would appear visible over the boundary fence (the height of the dwelling is 3.3m) and would therefore have minimal impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers.

The extension would be sited 15m at the closest point from the rear elevation of Richmond to the west of the site. 1no. window would be proposed in the west elevation serving the en-suite bathroom. It is considered that the proposed extension would not result in a loss of privacy to the residential amenities of the occupiers of Richmond. Further, given the proposed height of the extension at 3.3m, the proposal would not appear visually prominent to the occupiers of Richmond over the 1.8m high boundary fence.

The proposed extension would be sited 12.5m from the rear elevation of Turpin Cottage to the south of the application site. No additional windows are proposed in the southern flank wall of the extension and it is therefore considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would not result in overlooking. It is further noted that there are no windows in the rear elevation of the Cottage at first floor level and therefore the proposal would not appear visible to the occupiers.

The proposed extension would be sited 16m from Juniper to the south west of the site. Juniper is screened along the side and rear boundary facing onto Mulberry Lodge by existing vegetation and a shed and therefore it is considered that the proposal would have minimal impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of Juniper.

4. Accessibility Implications

There are no accessibility issues for disabled people relating to this application.

5. Highway Implications

The proposed extension would increase the number of bedrooms at the dwelling from 2 to 3. In accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards adopted July 2007, 2no. parking spaces are required. There is on-site parking for 3 cars and therefore it is considered that there is sufficient parking on site in accordance with the Council’s standards.

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

The proposed extension would be sited to the rear of the dwelling and would not have an impact upon the existing parking arrangement on site or interfere with the shared access serving both Glenask House and the application site. It is further considered that because the existing parking arrangement on site would not be altered, there would not be an increased disturbance to the residential amenities of the occupiers of Richmond than what is currently experienced.

6. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would have minimal impact upon the residential amenities of surrounding neighbouring properties, would appear sympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would not impact upon the existing parking arrangement on site. Therefore the proposal is recommended for approval.

6 RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following plans: drawing no. J0213202slp received 24 July 2008 drawing no. J0213206new received 24 July 2008 drawing no. J0213202blk received 24 July 2008 (or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as an amendment to the approved plans). REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

03. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. [Relevant Plans and Policies: BFBLP EN20, CS7 of CSDPD]

Summary Of Reason(s) For Decision:

The following development plan policies have been taken into account in determining this planning application:

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan: Policies EN20, M9, CS7 of CSDPD. (Please note that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list).

The following material considerations have been taken into account:

The proposal is considered to comply with BFBLP Policies EN20, M9, CS7 of CSDPD.

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008

The proposal will not adversely affect the character of the building, neighbouring property or area or significantly affect the amenities of neighbouring property. The planning application is therefore approved.

Doc. Ref: Uniform 7/DC/Agenda

The application file to which this report relates can be viewed at the Council's Time Square office during office hours or online at www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk

Planning & Highways Committee 18th September 2008