House extensions and loft conversion at 28 Milton Road, Earley, Wokingham

What is proposed

The application seeks a two-storey side extension, rear extension, loft conversion with two dormers, garage conversion and fenestration changes including a Juliet balcony.

“Applicant [name withheld] Address 28 Milton Road, Earley, Wokingham, RG6 1EL Proposal Householder application for the proposed two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, 2 no. rear dormers to facilitate loft conversion, garage conversion and changes to fenestration to include 1 no. Juliet balcony (part retrospective). Type Householder Officer Annabelle Jones Reason for determination by committee Listed by Councillor Stephen Newton…”

“SUMMARY The application seeks planning permission for a two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension, two rear dormers to facilitate a loft conversion, garage conversion and associated alterations including a Juliet balcony. The site comprises a semi-detached dwelling within an established residential area on Milton Road, Earley, characterised by similar suburban dwellings and a strong semi-detached building pattern.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a semi-detached home in an established residential area with similar suburban dwellings and a consistent semi-detached pattern.

“The application site relates to a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the southern side of Milton Road, within the settlement of Earley. Many dwellings are semi-detached with similar character and design. They have consistent design features that include pebbledash, ground floor facing brick, brick quoin detailing, bow windows, timber gable detailing and red/brown clay/concrete roof tiles.”

“Planning permission is sought for the proposed two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, 2 no. rear dormers to facilitate loft conversion, garage conversion and changes to fenestration to include 1 no. Juliet balcony (part retrospective).”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval because amended materials and architectural details improved the relationship with the adjoining property and addressed the previous refusal concerns.

“The current application seeks permission for the development as built, with amendments to the external appearance of the dwelling intended to address the concerns that formed the basis of the previous refusal. The proposal retains the side and rear extensions, dormers, loft conversion and garage conversion, whilst introducing revisions to the front elevation treatment, materials and architectural detailing to provide a more cohesive relationship with the adjoining property.”

“The application has been listed for Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Stephen Newton. Whilst objections have been received from local residents, Earley Town Council and the Ward Member, it is considered that the revised appearance of the dwelling has sufficiently addressed the previous refusal reason and that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring residential amenity or highway safety.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers considered that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to character, privacy, light, neighbouring outlook, parking or highway safety.

“Furthermore, no first-floor side facing habitable room windows are proposed that would directly overlook neighbouring properties. Taking into account the siting of the development, the orientation of neighbouring dwellings and the established pattern of mutual overlooking within the locality, it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring privacy.”

“It is considered that the development would not result in a significant loss of light to neighbouring habitable room windows or private amenity areas. The relationship between the application property and No. 26 was assessed during the site visit and, whilst some additional shadowing may occur at certain times of the day, this is not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council, ward member and three neighbours raised concerns about design, spacing, overlooking, light, parking, landscaping and alleged encroachment.

“The part retrospective development would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the semidetached dwellings as a whole and the character and appearance of the area by reason of the design and materials that creates a jarring and discordant relationship with the attached property.”

“Neighbours: Three neighbours have commented on this application, and their comments are summarised and responded to below: • Insufficient on-site parking provision for a six-bedroom dwelling. • Vehicles associated with the property causing parking and highway safety issues in the surrounding area. • Hard surfacing of the front garden resulting in a loss of soft landscaping. • Alleged encroachment onto neighbouring land and public land.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the application, another resident’s objections were read out, and the ward member also spoke against it.

Committee discussion

Councillors questioned the design changes, boundary gap, overlooking and parking, while officers explained why they considered the impacts acceptable.

“Councillors asked about the approximately 0.4m gap between the extension and the boundary. Officers advised that the Borough Design Guide stated that with regards to residential properties, a minimum of a one-metre gap should be retained between a building and a site boundary. Nevertheless, the relevant planning judgement was whether the relationship caused demonstrable harm sufficient to justify refusal. Officers considered that the proposal was not unacceptable.”

“Councillors questioned whether the rear dormer and floor-to-ceiling opening with a Juliet balcony would cause unacceptable overlooking. Officers confirmed that these features differed from the original scheme but advised that the resulting views were not untypical of upper-floor accommodation in a suburban setting and would not create a usable external platform. Officers were of the view that the changes did not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

“RESOLVED: That application 261414 be approved subject to conditions and informatives within the report.”

Minutes

Conditions

The permission requires the development to follow the approved plans and use external materials similar in appearance to the existing building.

“Approved details This permission is in respect of the submitted application plans and drawings numbered (2026-03-PA-08 Proposed First Floor Layout), (2026-03- PA-07 Proposed Ground Floor Plan), (2026-03-PA-04 Existing Roof Plan), (2026- 03-PA-02 Proposed Block Plan), (2026-03-PA-06 Existing Side Elevations), (2026-03-PA-14 Proposed Rear Perspective Views), (2026-03-PA-11 Proposed Front and Rear Elevations), (2026-03-PA-10 Proposed Roof Plan), (2026-03-PA- 01 Location…”

“External Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing building unless other minor variations are agreed in writing after the date of this permission and before implementation with the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory. Relevant policy: Core Strategy policies CP1 and CP3”

Officer report