Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a rear conservatory (part retrospective). 

The Committee was informed by the Specialist Development Management (Applications) officer, Sakina Khanbhai that the application sought retrospective planning permission for a single storey rear extension.  There was already an extant permission in place approved last year.  The current application had been submitted to include brickwork below ground level to show the damp course level.  The application site was comprised of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in the urban area of Guildford.  The line of the existing fence was assessed by the planning officer as part of a site visit.  The extension measured 3.3m in depth by 3.6 metres in width.  The current plan showed a damp proof course level, finished floor level and ground level which was omitted from the extant permission.  The additional brickwork was below the finished floor level of the extension, underneath the door openings and included the DPC level.  The height of the extension was 3.5 metres when including the DPC level below ground level.  It was important to note that the height and positioning of the extension was no different to the extant permission, the material difference was that the ground level had been dug out to show the DPC level, however the height of the extension had not changed.  The measurements taken on site were in accordance with the drawings submitted under the current application.  The application was considered by the planning officer to be acceptable in terms of design and scale and would not result in detrimental harm to neighbouring amenities and was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor Deborah Seabrook to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.

The Committee considered concerns raised that permitted development rights had been removed from this street owing to the small nature of the properties and the negative impact extensions of this kind would have upon neighbouring amenities.  The extension would also cause a significant loss of light contravening the 45-degree angle.  The plans submitted originally for this application were misleading as the dimensions gave the impression that it was lower than a previously refused application because it omitted the section below the damp proof course.  It was recommended that the application was deferred so that its height could be amended.

The Specialist Development Management (Majors) Officer, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that an amended application was not what was before the committee, rather the Committee had to make a decision based upon the application before it now. 

The Committee discussed the application and noted comments that the eaves level appeared to be the same as the extant permission.  It was recognised that it was unfortunate that the plans had not been amended.  The Committee noted that the original plans had failed to indicate the DPC level.  Planning officers measured the height from the ground level and the height of the extension had not in fact changed.  The Committee was concerned regarding the loss of light caused to the neighbouring property.  The plans were as submitted showing a brick wall up to the eaves.  The Committee asked if light was measured before and after a development and was confirmed that planning officers did not do that.  The SPD requirement was the BRE 45-degree angle assessment which in this case was breached but was not considered to be materially harmful enough and was the same as the extant permission. 

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 20/P/02011 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.