Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation including raising of the roof height and a rear dormer window.  Changes to fenestration.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer, Ben Mitchell.  The application had been referred to Committee as over ten letters of objection had been received.  The proposal was for a very small single storey infill extension at the back of the property.  The site occupied a corner plot with a mix of residential dwellings surrounding it of differing styles and was also located in the Guildford urban area.  The proposed floorplans showed two additional bedrooms being formed within the roofspace as well as a small single storey infill extension at the rear which extended 1.5 metres beyond the elevation.

There were two relevant previous planning applications on this site, one was a householder application for a proposed hip to gable end roof alteration with rear dormer, together with raising the ridge height and changes to the fenestration on the rear elevation.  This was refused on the grounds that the roof alterations would be overly large and out of character.  This application included all the elements of the refused application, however the current application included a smaller dormer size.  A second application had also been submitted for a certificate of lawfulness, to establish whether a hipped gable roof extension of a rear dormer and single storey rear extension would be lawful.  This application was approved and established that the alterations proposed were considered to be permitted development and as such did not require full planning permission. 

The fallback position was a material consideration. This application would result in an increase in the ridge height of 0.5 metres and an enlarged dormer at the rear, including the hip to gable conversion.  This application also included a side-facing first floor window within the dormer and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to avoid any overlooking concerns to neighbouring dwellings.

In summary officers considered that the application would not represent significant harm over what could be achieved under permitted development and recommended for approval. 

The Committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposal represented an acceptable form of development.  The resulting increase in ridge height of 0.5m was considered minimal and not harmful when compared to the scheme which could be carried out under permitted development rights. 

A motion was moved and seconded 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/02104 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.