Second-storey house extension at 126 Burnt Hill Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham

What was proposed

The application sought a second-storey extension, roof alterations, dormers, rooflights, a raised ridge and other householder changes.

“The application is for a householder extensions and alterations, over the existing footprint, including roof alterations which would raise the ridge height by 0.87m to create second floor habitable accommodation within the enlarged roofspace, a gable extension to the front (over the existing catslide roof which projects to the front of the dwelling), a ground floor veranda roof canopy to the front and side, fenestration changes, and the regularisation of the height of an…”

“Erection of second storey extension together with alterations to roofspace including dormers, rooflights and raising of roof ridge height to provide habitable accommodation. • Roof alterations to raise the ridge height by 0.87m to facilitate second floor accommodation within the roof space. The extension would be over the footprint of the existing building. • Extension over the catslide roof to the front, forming a front gable over the existing footprint.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a detached dwelling on rising residential land within Farnham’s built-up area boundary.

“The site is located within the Built Up Area Boundary of Farnham, wherein the principle of the development would be acceptable.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Several earlier extension applications were granted, including permission for a rear extension and a front gable extension in 2022.

“Reference Proposal Decision WA/2022/00322 Erection of extensions, alterations to elevations and fenestrations with associated works. GRANTED 09/06/2022”

“WA/2012/0268 Erection of a three storey front extension and works including a retaining wall and front entrance gates following demolition of existing extension. GRANT 12/04/2012”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable in design, character, visual amenity and neighbouring residential amenity terms.

“It is considered that the proposal would fully accord with the Development Plan, being of an acceptable design and appearance within its surrounding context. It is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity or to the character and amenity of the area. This takes account of the extant planning permission for extensions to this dwelling, which is a material consideration.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no objection, while two adjacent properties objected on grounds including privacy, light, bulk, overbearing effects and damage.

“Objections have been received from the two adjacent properties, 124 and 128 Burnt Hill Road, on the following grounds: • A bedroom window view of the Common would be lost. • A Party Wall agreement is needed. • Objection to the front dormer due to loss of privacy to a bedroom window. • Mass and bulk not proportionate. • Loss of light, though not to my property.”

“Previous and ongoing, unrectified damage to our property, including a rear fence and two walls. • The proposal site is 1.7m above 128’s ground floor level at the rear, so development is far more impactful. • Habitable rooms on the side of 128 would be affected.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a supporter spoke, while the ward councillor who had registered to speak did not.

Committee discussion

Members were told that a historical planning application had been omitted and that the report had been unavailable online for several hours.

“the report had been taken off the web for a short period of time, however, the Regulatory and Review Advisor explained this had only been for a matter of hours on the day of the meeting following the unpublishing of a supplement which had safeguarding issues. Therefore, it had been published for 5 working days prior to the meeting.”

“a historical planning application had been omitted from the report and could be a material consideration. It was therefore agreed to DEFER the item to include this material for consideration.”

Minutes