Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed single storey front extension with new front porch and garage conversion to habitable accommodation including single storey side extension; single storey side extension to south-east elevation (Amended plan received on 07/03/2023 omitting the first floor front element from the proposed side (north-west elevation).

Prior to the consideration of the application, the following person 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 there would be small area of flat roof which was not visually prominent due to the hipped roof design around the single storey and side extensions.  The footprint of the dwelling would increase as well as creating a small projection forward of the adjoining dwelling which would follow the common building line and was not perceived as unduly prominent.  The existing garage on the property projected forward of the building line.  Similar variations along the street frontage could be seen.  The existing lean to was proposed to be removed, replaced and enclosed.  A new lean to would also be created along the side boundary with the garage and neighbouring property, number 7.

Planning officers considered that the proposal would comply with policies in the development plan and would not result in an adverse impact on the character of the streetscene or have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity.  The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the updates as detailed on the supplementary late sheets.

The Committee considered the application and noted a slight improvement in that the right-hand extension was located further back.  There were concerns still however that the proposal completely filled the site and represented a form of over-development, cramped and out of character with the street scene.  The parking provision was also reduced and contrary to Effingham Neighbourhood Plan’s Policy ID10.

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, 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 Chris Blow to refuse the application for the following reasons, which was carried (as per the reasons voted for in application 23/P/00003): 

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/00007 for the reasons as detailed above.