Rear terrace over garage at 91 Commonwealth Road, Caterham

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a terrace over an existing garage at the rear of the property.

“Application: 2026/100 Location: Commonwealth Road, Caterham, Surrey, CR3 6LW Proposal: Erection of a terrace over existing garage at rear of property (Retrospective) Ward: Valley Decision Level: Committee…”

“Planning permission is sought for erection of a terrace over an existing garage at rear of the property (Retrospective) at 91 Commonwealth Road. The proposed development would respect the character and appearance of the area and would not significantly harm neighbouring amenity, therefore planning permission is recommended subject to conditions.”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The key issues were the terrace’s effect on the property and surrounding area, and on neighbouring residential amenities.

“The site is located within the urban area of Caterham where the principle of development is acceptable. The key issue is the impact the development would have on the character of the property and the surrounding area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and a neighbour raised concerns about privacy, overlooking and the terrace’s dominant effect, while officers proposed a privacy-screen condition.

“Overlooking and loss of privacy • Overbearing and dominant impact on neighbour…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application and the applicant spoke in support.

The committee’s concerns

The proposed raised terrace was considered harmful because of its elevated position, depth and use beside the shared boundary, and the proposed screen was considered inadequate.

“The proposed raised terrace, by reason of its elevated position, depth and use as an outdoor sitting area adjacent to the shared boundary, would result in unacceptable overlooking, visual intrusion and loss of privacy to the occupiers of No. Commonwealth Road.”

“The mitigation proposed by condition, requiring a privacy screen, would itself fail to overcome the resulting harm and would instead introduce an unduly enclosing form of development to the detriment of neighbouring residential amenity.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved the motion for refusal when it was put to the vote.

“The motion was proposed by Councillor Stringer and seconded by Councillor Lockwood.”

“Upon being put to the vote the motion was approved.”

Minutes