Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 2 of planning application 20/P/01954 approved 06/01/21 to replace approved drawings with those submitted to create a part two storey part single storey rear extension.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Terence Waters (Chairman of Park Corner Drive Residents’ Association (to object);

·         Ms Jackie Bunyan (to object) and;

·         Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from James Overall, Senior Planning Officer.  The Committee noted that the site was located in an area inset from the Green Belt and was within the identified settlement boundary.  It was also within the 400 metre to 500 km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).  The site consisted of a two-storey detached replacement dwelling which was granted permission under 20/P/01954 and is currently under construction.  The dwelling was situated on a large plot, located away from the residential cul-de-sac which was characterised by dwellings of various styles.  The houses at High Brambles were at a higher ground level than neighbouring properties.  The road was characterised by mature hedging and trees to the side and rear boundaries with soft landscaping in front gardens.  The plan was to seek to extend the depth across the rear elevation by a third, up to 9.9 metres compared to the approved plan.  There would be no change to the width or front elevation of the dwelling.  The revised proposal would have the same first floor rear windows, but as a result of the extension these rear elevation windows would be set back.  The separation distance to the properties at the rear would be retained at 2.99 metres.  The extension would not reduce this distance and as a result of the proposed extension the angle of view would be set back further into the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties either side.  When assessing overlooking, 5 metres was considered to be detrimental from the rear elevation with regard to vision splays.  The areas affected by overlooking were considered to be small compared to the expanse of amenity space in relation to neighbouring amenities.

There will be an increase in the depth of the flank elevations and insertion of one additional roof light on the eastern flank elevation.  There will be a high level rooflight serving a kitchen at ground floor on the proposed alterations.  Sufficient spacing would be maintained to the side boundaries to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on neighbouring plots on either side or any detrimental loss of light or overbearing impact.  This Section 73 application proposes an alteration which did not change the front elevation nor the design of the dwelling house.  With regard to elevations, the dwelling would continue to follow the line of existing development either side of the host property.  The host dwelling extending past the rear building line protrusion was relatively minor and would not harm the character of the area.  The boundary with neighbouring properties would be retained at 3.5metres with no increase in height proposed.  This resulted in a dwelling which was in keeping with the character of the area and had an acceptable relationship with its immediate surroundings.

In summary the proposed alterations all occurat the end at the rear of the property, and it was considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the character of the area.  In terms of the impact upon neighbouring amenity, the alterations would not cause detrimental harm, with regards overlooking, overshadowing or outlook.   The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of which one is for the removal of permitted development rights for extensions and roof extensions to ensure dwelling house to not add additional bulk without first applying for planning permission.

The Chairman permitted, Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

The Committee noted concerns raised that by allowing this variation would cause significant planning harm to the character of the immediate local area.  It would also have a significant impact on the private amenity on both sets of neighbours.  If the variation were granted it would result in a building virtually the same size as that refused.  The Planning Inspector described this as a bulky and dominant scheme and undermining of the existing character, stating that it would result in a proposal that was discordant, harmful and completely out of place.  The proposal contravened the Local Plan and East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan as the proposal did not respect the distinct local character of the area and was in conflict with policy D1 with regard to place shaping, G1 regarding general standards of development and G1(3) regarding protection of amenity and that residents expect to be protected from unneighbourly development in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight.  This development would result in a significant loss of day and sunlight which was a material planning consideration.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the road sloped upwards and the new extension would sit higher in comparison to the neighbouring property, notably the orientation on the map provided in the officer’s report on page 84 was inaccurate where it pointed which was critical in tracking the movement of the sun and the impact of shadowing on both neighbour’s gardens, in particular the patio and seating area of the garden of Two Steps.  As a result of its scale and bulk the proposed development was also contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan policy EH47 which required that designs were in keeping with the established character.  There was also a lack of significant screening following the felling of trees given the right to daylight and sunlight. 

The Committee discussed the application and was concerned regarding the increased volume proposed of the property of which there was not a clear breakdown in the report.  It was critical to see the breakdown of volume owing to the loss of amenity to the neighbours.

The Committee also noted their concerns regarding the size of the extension which was significant and bulky and would be out of character.  In addition, the effect of the light on the patio and the effect upon neighbouring amenities.

The Committee queried if permitted development rights were allowed would the proposal therefore be a single storey structure as opposed to two storeys in height. 

The Committee also considered points raised that the proposal did not look out of character despite it being a larger house.

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger clarified comments made by the Committee.  With regard to permitted development, there were different permitted development criteria for single storey and two storey extensions.  More than one storey could be carried out under permitted development subject to a number of criteria, one of which was that it didn’t exceed 3 metres in depth.  So a two-storey extension could conceivably be done under permitted development.  Single storey extensions for detached properties could also go deeper.  With regard to volume calculations, these were not included in the report as the site in question was inset from the Green Belt. With regard to character, the changes proposed were predominantly to the rear of the property and how that affected the wider character not just visibility.  Whilst the proposal projected further backwards it was not any closer to the boundary.

The Committee agreed that the proposal represented a building that was excessive in scale in comparison to the neighbouring properties.  It was overbearing and would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.  Of particular concern, was the patio at the property Two Steps which would be overshadowed and have their amenity space reduced. 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was lost.

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried. 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/01683 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwelling would by virtue of the additional depth at two storey height result in a building which is excessive in scale compared to nearby properties, resulting in overbearingness and having a detrimental impact upon the character of the prevailing area. As such the proposal does not comply with the Local Plan (2015-2034) Policy D1(4) - 'Place Shaping: Distinct Local Character', which seeks for all new development to be designed and reflect the distinct local character of the area and reinforce locally distinct patterns of development. Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan (2017-2033) Policy EH-H7 (a) - 'East Horsley Design Code: Houses & Bungalows', which seeks for designs to be in keeping with the established character of Easy Horsley and the style of properties surrounding the development.

2. As a result of the increased rear projection and proximity to the boundary protruding past the rear building line of the neighbouring property Two Steps, the development will have an overbearing and overshadowing impact upon the patio area of Two Steps thereby having a detrimental impact upon their amenity space. As such the proposal does not comply with the Saved Local Plan (2003) Policy G1(3) – ‘Protection of Amenities Enjoyed by Occupants of Buildings’, which seeks to ensure that amenities enjoyed by occupants of buildings are protected from unneighbourly development with regard to privacy and access to sunlight/daylight.

Informatives:

1.    This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by:

· Offering a pre application advice service

· Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been followed, we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during the course of the application

· Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues identified at an early stage in the application process.

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes to an application is required.

Pre-application advice was not sought on the original scheme (20/P/01954) prior to submission and minor alterations were required to overcome concerns, these were sought and the applicant agreed to the changes.

For the Section 73 application (21/P/01683) pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and there are significant objections to the application that minor alterations would not overcome, it was not considered appropriate to seek amendments through the course of this application.