Roof extension and dormer at Flat 2 25 Green Lane, Addlestone

What was proposed

The application sought a hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer and front roof-lights, creating loft space while retaining a two-bedroom flat.

“Planning permission is sought for hip to gable roof extension and construction of rear dormer. In addition the proposal includes front roof lights. The application form states the development would be finished in matching materials. The application is for a dormer. As flats do not have permitted development rights the dormer requires planning permission. Amended plans have been received which clarify the proposed layout.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The flat is at a semi-detached urban property near town-centre amenities and a train station, with a rear garden and neighbouring homes.

“To the west of the site is No.27 an end of terrace dwelling with rear extensions and rear patio. At the far end of the garden there is an outbuilding. The site is in the urban area. Green Lane is not within a conservation area. It is a street of mixed sub-urban housing. There is a mixture, of detached homes alongside those that are semi-detached and terraced. The rear garden at No.25 is between 14-20m long.”

“The site is within walking distance to town centre amenities and the train station.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the design acceptable, found no harmful residential impacts, and identified no highway or parking policy objections.

“The development will have an acceptable physical relationship with surrounding dwellings. If any additional consents are required in addition to planning permission the Applicant will need to be separately addressed with the relevant Authorities. If a statutory noise nuisance were to occur this should be reported to the Environmental Health Team, who would investigate. Highway considerations 7.19.”

“CONCLUSIONS 10.1 The development is acceptable in terms of appearance and with no harmful impacts on residential amenities. There are no highway or parking policy objections. The development has been, assessed against Local Plan Policies SD4 (Highway Design Considerations), EE1 (Townscape and Landscape Quality), EE9 (Biodiversity), together with the NPPF and relevant PPG’s. Other material considerations including third party representations have been, considered.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents raised concerns about congestion, parking, appearance, overlooking, light, privacy, living conditions, trees and protected species.

“Contrary to Design SPD To be considered below Mass, bulk and large of dormer out of keeping with property “” Out of character “” Overbearing impact upon surrounding properties “” Loss of privacy from overlooking “” Loss of light from mass of proposal “” Unneighbourly development “” Poor living conditions for future occupiers “” Poor outdoor amenity space…”

“Possible harm to protected species on site No BNG information is required, no evidence of potential for bats in the roof. Loss of garden trees from future development pressure at the site The trees are not in a conservation area. There are shrubs and trees onsite the application form is wrong…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee in objection, followed by the applicant’s planning agent in support.

The committee debate

Members noted that this type of extension is normally permitted development and that permission was needed because the property was lawfully used as flats.

“The Committee then debated the proposal. Whilst they were sympathetic to the objectors, it was noted that, this type of extension can be and is normally carried out under permitted development rights. Permission was only required in this instance because the property had a lawful use as flats. Flat do not have permitted development rights. There was no policy reasons to object to the application as set out in the officer report.”

“In response to perceived errors raised by the objector, the officer confirmed that the correct address had been visited by officers, and that the current two bedrooms were separately accessed from the hallway and occupiers did not need to walk across one to access the other. It was also noted that hip to gable conversions were a common type of extension, and that there was likely to be no to minimal impact on surrounding trees and shrubbery because it was a roof conversion.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised approval subject to the conditions set out in the officer recommendation.

“The Planning Committee authorised the Head of Planning to:”

“Grant approval subject to the conditions as detailed in section 12 of the report.”

Minutes