Application Number: 18/P4442                  Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

PAC resolved to Refuse Planning Permission for 18/P4442

The reasons for refusal will be detailed in the Minutes of the Meeting

Proposal: Removal of existing garage extension, erection of a single storey rear extension; alterations to existing first floor balcony and balustrade; replacement of existing rear dormer window with two dormer windows, associated internal alterations and construction of a basement beneath part of rear garden.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda

The Committee Received verbal representations from two objectors to the application who made points including:

·         This application is in a Conservation Area and it is still too large and unneighbourly

·         Nothing has changed  - this is a huge underground development

·         The Planning Inspectors report incorrectly states that the basement was size was reduced to address the concerns of neighbours

·         This is a very un-green application, consider the thousands of tons of cement to construct it and the ongoing water and heating requirements of the pool

·         The garden will be decimated and trees lost, including a magnificent magnolia tree.

·         The Officers report does not consider the large number of underground streams in the area. There are warnings that the development will act as a dam, re-routing large amounts of water to neighbouring properties

·         The Councils Flood Risk Officer has concerns

·         The development will cause ecological damage, no ecological appraisal has been carried out contrary to CS13

·          The basement construction method statement warns that the vast excavation will create so much waste water that it will need to be removed in a tanker

·         This report also says that Ground conditions may be unstable during excavation which is terrifying for close neighbours

The Committee Received verbal representations from the Applicant and their Agent who made points including:

·         Applicants want to restore this locally listed building

·         The Planning Inspector had concerns with the first floor extension on the previous application

·         With all the information available to him, The Planning Inspector did not refuse the appeal for the previous application on the basement

·         The basement in this application is 39% of the garden size and is therefore policy compliant

·         The application is supported by the Council’s Tree Officer

·         The Environment Agency classify the area as low flood risk

·         Thames Water say that the waste water can be discharged into the foul water mains

·         No development can take place until the Flood Risk survey is approved?

·         Only one tree will be removed – the Magnolia tree. All trees are set within the boundaries

·         The Applicant said that her son was a very promising swimmer and having a 25m pool would enable him to train twice a day and help him reach his potential.

The Committee Received verbal representations from Ward Councillor Andrew Howard who made points including:

·         This application is still unacceptable – it has not changed from last time

·         Residents’ concerns are still not given due respect

·         Residents have raised the same objections as for the previous application

In reply to Members’ Questions, Officers made points including:

·         The Planning Inspectors report on the previous application can be challenged regarding statements of fact. Planning Officers have to take this report as a material consideration. Expert views are that this application is acceptable and policy compliant

·         The Environment Agency classify this area as Flood Risk 1 – which is low risk

·         Officers have checked, and the basement will cover 39% of the garden. This is below the allowed coverage of 50%. The garden area includes the land down the side and at the back.

·         It is a large basement but it is in a large plot. The definition of how the 50% take up is judged is it is based on which garden space the basement would extend under (i.e. rear basement you only take into account the rear garden space in the calculations).

·         The basement size has been reduced from 42% of the garden area to 39%. Although this is a small change it is material, and Members should note that the basements in both schemes are policy compliant.

·         The distance between next door fence and the basement wall  is 2.6m

·         The Planning Inspector does not pass comment on the basement in his report. Officers interpret this as meaning that the Inspector was content with the basement. If he had an issue with the basement it would have been mentioned in his report. Paragraph 18 of the Inspectors report outlines that the scheme would ‘overall’ not be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Members made comments including:

·         This application is a dilemma for members as it was previously refused for the rear extension and the basement, but the Inspector only commented on the single story extension.

·         We need to consider the environmental impact of this construction, both in building and filling the pool with water that will require topping up and changing

·         Residents are very concerned about flooding

·         Do not accept that the Planning Inspector was content with the basement. The fact is that the appeal on the previous application was dismissed, including the basement.

·         Members are uncomfortable with the size of the swimming pool and basement, but noted that it is policy compliant

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.    REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·           The size of the proposed basement is disproportionate to the size of the house

·           The proposal represents overdevelopment in a Conservation Area

·           The size of the proposed basement too large and is unneighbourly.

2.    DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies