Roof extension and balcony at 108 Reading Road, Woodley, Wokingham

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans for a rear extension, replacement roof, dormers, roof terraces, balcony, windows and materials.

“Applicant [name withheld] Khan Site Address 108 Reading Road, Woodley, Wokingham, RG5 3AD Proposal Application to vary Condition 2 (Approved Details) of planning permission 251184 for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension, plus erection of a replacement roof with 2 no.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached bungalow on a corner plot, with a garage and brick outbuilding, at the entrance to Elmwood Close.

“The application relates to a detached, bungalow in the residential area of Woodley with a garage and brick outbuilding in the rear garden. The site is a corner plot at the entrance to Elmwood Close. The front boundary is a low brick wall with iron railings above, brick pillars and double gates with iron railings.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions approved the main householder development and later changes to the dormer and rear roof terrace.

“Planning permission is sought to vary Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 251184. Application 251184 saw permission granted for a single storey rear extension, replacement roof to create first floor accommodation, front and rear roof terraces, removal of the front bay window and changes to fenestration. The variations to the approved plans conditions includes:”

“Alterations to the rear dormer • Amendments to fenestration • Revisions to the rear balcony • Changes to the dormer roof form • Associated material amendments.”

Officer report

Officers recommended approval

Officers considered the changes acceptable in design and scale, with no unacceptable effects on neighbouring amenity or parking.

“The proposal includes fenestration changes, installation of a rear balcony and alterations to the rear dormer roof. These elements are considered acceptable in scale and design and would not harm the character of the area.”

“The development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity in respect of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing effect. Adequate on-site parking would also be retained.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town or parish council raised no objection, while a local member and four neighbours objected over design, privacy, noise and parking.

“Town/Parish Council: No objection raised.”

“Local Members: Councillor Alison Swaddle: The proposed development would not be in keeping with the character of neighbouring properties, by reason of its scale and design, resulting in an overbearing form of development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the application, followed by the ward councillor, who urged refusal because of harm to residential amenity.

The committee’s discussion

Members questioned separation distances, balcony size, views into gardens, privacy screening, fallback permissions and potential noise.

“The Committee sought clarification on whether the balcony was larger on the already approved application. Councillors were informed that it was now 1.3m narrower in total. Where the dormer was extended under the original variation, application 252525, that had extended the dormer further out. The balcony now finished on the property. Officers believed that with the privacy screens and the fallback position there was not material harm between the two applications.”

“A Councillor questioned whether the new balcony would give a substantially wider view of neighbouring gardens. Officers were of the view that the main private amenity space would not be overlooked. The Case Officer added that the extant permission was somewhat of a fallback position. Should it be implemented by the applicant there would be some views over neighbouring gardens from the balcony.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved application 261179.

“RESOLVED: That application 261179 be approved.”

Minutes