Agenda item

21/P/02403 - Tranquility, 12 Conford Drive, Shalford, Guildford, GU4 8DX


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


·         Mr Ian Camfield (to object) and;

·         Mr Christopher Bailey-Gates (to object)


The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for a side infill extension, side extension, and first floor extension, following removal and replacement of existing pitched roof.


The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, John Busher.  The Committee noted that the application was located on Conford Drive which was off the Horsham Road in Shalford.  The site was suburban and residential in character, with dwellings to the north.  To the south and east, the site was covered by a TPO which protected the existing trees in the western and northern boundaries.  The proposal was for modifications and extensions to an existing bungalow, including the provision of some first-floor accommodation.  The existing bungalow was a modest sized property which included an internal garage and was set on a large corner plot.  The surrounding area was comprised of mainly bungalows of a similar design and scale with some two-storey dwellings located opposite. 


A small extension was proposed to the western elevation and a very small extension on the eastern elevation.  The dwelling would fit comfortably within the plot.  The common boundary with the neighbouring property would be set a significant distance away, the rear element of the first floor set 5 metres off the boundary and 8 metres between the two side elevations of the host property.  The new rear elevation would be 17 metres to the boundary to the south.  Planning officers had visited both neighbouring sites which would be most impacted by the proposal and whilst it was accepted that there would be some loss of light to number 11 Conford Drive, it would not be to an extent which would materially harm the occupiers of the dwelling.  The proposal included numerous areas of flat roof which had been raised by the objectors to the application.  However, the applicant had confirmed that there was no intention to use those areas of flat roof as amenity space and was also controlled by condition 6.


The remodelled dwelling would be of a modern contemporary design with a flat roof featuring glazing that would be finished with timber cladding.  The new dwelling would not be significantly taller than the existing house.  It was acknowledged that the design would be different to the existing properties on Conford Drive, however, it was Officer’s view that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the surroundings.


Planning officers were comfortable with the design, size and scale of the property and had concluded that the proposal was compliant with the Local Plan.  Officers had also carefully assessed the impact on the neighbouring properties and whilst there would be some limited impact on the amenity of number 11 Conford Drive, it would not be of a level which would warrant the refusal of the application.


The planning officer, John Busher confirmed in response to comments made by the public speakers that the plans that had been submitted by the applicant were sufficient enough to be able to assess the impact upon neighbouring properties.  In terms of the increase in floor area of 88%, that figure could not be verified, however, the site was not located in the Green Belt and the Council did not have any policies to restrict the size of houses in the settlement areas.  In terms of policies, G1 and G5 were mentioned.  G1 was the policy used to assess the impact upon neighbouring amenity which was relevant and policy D1 in the new Local Plan. 


The Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that government regulations determined what was required for the validation of an application, the application in this instance met those requirements and therefore there was more that sufficient information to make a recommendation.  In terms of the comments made regarding whether it should have been a householder or full application, the planners were bound to consider the application as submitted.  There was also an information on the recommendation which set out that if during the course of development they were required to remove the whole building and it became a replacement rather than an extension, an appropriate application would then need to be submitted.  The Committee therefore had to determine what was before it on the basis of it submitted as an extension.


The Committee discussed the application and noted the increase in height of the new dwelling from 4.7 metres to 6.1 metres, which was considered would not have a significant impact on the neighbouring kitchen window.  However, whilst it was an extension and not a re-development, it still represented a significant extension and therefore asked if a condition could be applied to regulate the hours of work.  The Committee was also concerned regarding the level of works that would take place in a small quiet cul-de-sac.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the size of the proposed property was out of character with the existing area and represented an overdevelopment.


The Head of Place, Dan Ledger clarified that in terms of the proposed condition regarding regulating the hours of work it was not normally the type of condition applied to works that involved extensions.  However, it was something that could be added into the recommendation if the Committee agreed it was reasonable to do so.  In addition, in response to comments regarding the architectural design and impact on character, just because something introduces a different style did not mean that it was out of character.  The main consideration was to establish what harm would be caused by the development.  The officers report did allude to the fact that the site was located in an area which was characterised by dwellings of mixed character.  The proposed dwelling was also respectful of the scale and height and proportions of the existing dwelling on Conford Drive.  With regard to the first-floor accommodation the applicant could have taken a different route which would have resulted in a much bigger and taller building.  However, the flat roof reduced the height, bulk and massing of the dwelling so overall planning officers had concluded that it did respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling on Conford Drive.


The Committee noted further concerns raised regarding the sites position on a corner plot as well as the narrowness of the drive and how to control construction vehicles.  The Head of Place confirmed that conditions such as Construction Transport Management Plans tended to be restricted for large developments and therefore the reasonableness of applying such a condition had to be considered.


Concerns were also raised regarding a landing window and the potential for overlooking to number 11.  The Committee noted that it would not be obscure glazed given the large separation distance between both properties and the fact that it was a narrow window it was not necessary.


The Committee voted on a motion to include an hours of work condition which was approved as per condition 8. (9:2:2 – not a recorded vote).


The Committee also voted on a motion regarding controlling traffic and parking onsite which was lost. (10:1:2 – not a recorded vote).


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










Angela Gunning





Pauline Searle





Liz Hogger





Deborah Seabrook





Colin Cross





Fiona White





Ruth Brothwell





Angela Goodwin





Chris Blow





Marsha Moseley





Ramsey Nagaty





Jon Askew





Graham Eyre










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


RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/02403 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and additional condition 8:


8. Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall not take place other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 and 1300 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays.


Reason: To protect the neighbours from disturbance outside the permitted hours during the construction period.

Supporting documents: