Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for part two storey / part single storey rear extension and demolition of existing shed.

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

·        Ms Helen Marshall (to object) via MSTeams; and

·        Mr James Deverill, MCA Architects (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Katie Williams.  The Committee noted that the site was located within the urban area of Guildford and within the town centre Conservation Area.  The boundary of the Conservation Area followed the rear boundary line of the dwellings on the northern side of Oxford Road which was a cul-de-sac consisting of detached and semi-detached two storey Victorian dwellings.  The site was bordered by 15 Oxford Road to the south and 11 Oxford Road to the north.  The road sloped upwards from north to south.  The ground level of 11 Oxford Road was set lower than that of the application site and the ground level of 15 Oxford Road was higher. 

Permitted development rights would allow for a single storey, rear extension measuring to an eaves height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 4 metres and extending to a depth of 4 metres.  The single storey extension would project by 4 metres beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling and the two storey element would project by 1.6 metres beyond the existing rear elevation.

Due to concerns raised by residents regarding the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenities, officers requested that a daylight and sunlight assessment was carried out.  The report was undertaken and the findings of the assessment were taken into account.  It was acknowledged that there would be some impact on the windows and garden area immediately to the rear of 11 Oxford Road.  However, officers considered that there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact to the neighbouring property.

In conclusion, it was considered that the proposed extension would result in sympathetic additions to the host dwelling that would not have an adverse impact on its scale and character and would not detract from the character of the Conservation Area.  The concerns raised by neighbouring residents regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity had been considered, however officers felt that there would not be an unacceptable impact and the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor John Redpath to speak for three minutes.  The Committee noted concerns raised that Oxford Road was steep with houses built sideways up the hill.  There was therefore a height different between each property of 1.5 metres.  The proposed extension at no.13, a detached building was part ground floor and part first floor and built right up to the boundary walls of the properties on either side.  This created an overbearing effect to number 11 especially, which was lower down the hill.  Even the single storey part of the proposed extension would be some 4.5 metres above the ground level of number 11 with the first floor much higher than this.  The daylight and sunlight report was not sufficient and did not allow for the height difference between the properties.  The report appeared to incorrectly calculate the loss of daylight.  Policy H5(1) stated that extensions should not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of adjacent buildings. A 30% loss of daylight to one of the living rooms at number 11 was unacceptable. The 45 degree rule should be applied to the ground floor extension.  Councillor John Redpath then left the room for consideration of this application.

The planning officer confirmed that whilst there was some encroachment on the 45-degree angle, the Committee had to be mindful that the single storey extension could still be built out under permitted development.

The Committee questioned whether the consultant employed to write the sunlight and daylight report had actually visited the site, given the overbearing nature of the extension proposed and how number 11 would be significantly affected.

The Committee noted that the height of the single storey extension proposed was 3.2 metres and under permitted development could be built to 3 metres to eaves height and was therefore a 200mm difference.  The Committee noted comments that this was relevant and such a minor differential would indicate that the Council would most likely lose at appeal if the application was refused.  It was also further confirmed that the 45-degree angle did not affect the permitted development that could be carried out.  Planning officers clarified that whilst they could not verify if the consultants who submitted the sunlight and daylight report actually visited the site or not, it was undertaken by a Chartered Surveyor that was registered as a professional body.

A motion was moved by Councillor Chris Barrass and seconded by Councillor Ruth Brothwell to refuse the application owing to contravening Policy H4 and the Residential Extensions SPD.  The vote was lost. 

A subsequent motion was moved by the Chairman, Councillor Fiona White and Councillor Marsha Moseley to approve the application which was carried.

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

RESOLVED to approve application 22/P/00900 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.