Agenda item

The Committee considered the above mentioned full application for erection of part single/part two storey front extension with conversion of garage to habitable accommodation, new front porch and single storey side extension.

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

·        Mr David King (to object) (spoke once to applications 23/P/00003 and 23/P/00007)

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the site was inset from the Green Belt.  The existing two storey detached house had an integrated garage.  The proposal would comprise a two-storey extension to the front of the house and a wrap around single storey extension with a porch and would extend along the shared boundaries of the property.  The houses in the streetscene had a variety of designs and styles with no uniformity in appearance.  The front gable was an existing feature of the streetscene, as seen at number 5 Orchard Gardens.  There were no side facing windows on number 5 that would be affected at the first-floor level from the extension.  The existing driveway would also be retained for parking. 

There was an existing lean to along the boundary which would be more formalised by the development.  The shared boundary with number 7 Orchard Road had an existing garage right up to the boundary line.  Again, there were no windows on the flank elevation of the adjoining property which would be affected.  The proposal would comply with the policies in the development plan and would not result in an adverse effect on the character of the area or have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenities.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and the amendments as detailed in the supplementary late sheets.

In relation to comments made by the public speaker, the Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that in relation to rainwater discharge and guttering, the development needed to be wholly constructed within the application site.  In relation to comments that the proposal would set a precedent, the Committee was reminded that it must consider each application on its own merits against the development plan.

The Committee considered the application and noted that the site itself was fairly narrow compared with other properties on the road.  The Committee noted concerns raised about the extension to the boundary on both sides of the building.  All of the other houses in the cul-de-sac were detached and of varied design but none of them totally filled the site from side to side.  The front elevation was particularly prominent and not a side extension that was set back.  The Committee considered concerns that the proposal represented a form of overdevelopment which was cramped and out of character with the streetscene.  In addition, parking was limited given it would now only have two parking spaces for a four-bedroom property.  This was in contradiction to the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan which stated that there should be three parking spaces owing to preventing parking on the main road.  The newly adopted development management policy ID10 specifically stated that the parking standards adopted in neighbourhood plans would take predencence over standards set by the local planning authority.  Effingham was noted to be an area reliant upon the car given that the public transport network was poor.

The Committee noted concerns raised regarding the lack of guttering proposed and whether anything could be done to alleviate that issue owing to the risk of excess water flooding into neighbouring properties.

The Committee received clarification on questions raised by Councillors from Gemma Fitzpatrick, Development Management Lead, that in relation to guttering, there were a variety of ways that rainwater collection could be dealt with in building design and was a matter for building control under the Building Regulations.  The lack of guttering was therefore not a reason to object on planning grounds.  The relevant planning consideration was that the development took place within the ownership of the red line identified on the application form.  In relation to the parking standards, it was confirmed that the four-bedroom dwelling would require three parking spaces to be provided.  The standards were there to protect the amenity of the area, however, because the road was, in the planning officer’s view, not experiencing a high level of parking congestion there would not be a material harm from parking on the street and there would continue to be parking provision on the driveway.

The Committee noted that the parking situation could not be adequately assessed from one visit.  The local Rugby Club was located nearby and the road was very congested with parking on Sundays.  The planning officers suggested that it would not be unreasonable to add a condition that required the applicant to provide additional parking at the front of the property.

The Committee queried what the volume was of the extensions permitted on this property to date and how much of an increase that amounted to.  Planning officers confirmed that the previous extensions had been granted via permitted development rights.  In terms of volume calculations, officers would need to look at the details of the certificate of lawfulness.

Owing to the concerns raised regarding the application, the Chairman asked if there was a Committee member who wished to propose an alternative motion to the officer proposal which was to approve the application.  The Committee member needed to specify the harm the proposed development would cause and if possible state the appropriate planning policies as the basis for the reasons for refusal.

A motion was moved by Councillor Liz Hogger and seconded by Councillor Graham Eyre to refuse the application for the following reasons, which was carried: 

Reason 1 – Over-Development and Out of Character

The proposed development, by virtue of its inappropriate design and overdevelopment of the plot, would be out of character and detrimental to the street scene. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (2019), Policies H4(1)(a), D4(1)(a), D4(3)(c) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies Adopted on 22 March 2023 and Policy ENP-G2(3) of the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030.

Reason 2 – Parking

The proposed development, by virtue of the lack of provision for three car parking spaces, fails to comply with Policy ID10 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies Adopted on 22 March 2023 and Policy ENP-R1 of the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030, to safeguard against parking off the site.

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

RESOLVED to refuse application 23/P/00003 for the reasons as detailed above.