House extensions and garage at 14 Barnwood, Pound Hill, Crawley

What was proposed

The application proposed single-storey rear and side extensions and a detached garage at the front of the house.

“The proposal consists of single storey rear and side extensions to the house and a detached garage at the front of the house.”

“The side extension on the western elevation would enlarge the existing sitting room. It would be about 3.6m long, 3m wide to the front and rear and 4.1m high to the apex of the pitched roof, which would align with the existing gable of the side elevation of the dwelling. The extension would include windows at the front and side, which would be in a leaded pattern to complement the existing, with doors at the rear.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a detached house with gardens, trees, hedgerows, an embankment, nearby footpath and archaeological designation.

“The application site contains a two-storey, detached house on the south side of Barnwood in the neighbourhood of Pound Hill. Barnwood is not an adopted highway and is owned by Crawley Borough Council. The house has a large front garden, about 27m long and between 15m and 24m wide. The house is on raised land, compared to the front part of the garden nearest the road.”

“The application site is in the Pound Hill Medieval Moated Site Archaeological Area. The moated site lies to the east/south-east of No. 14. Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) are present at the front and rear of the house, the latter for an Oak tree, and the area is generally wooded. A public footpath is present beyond the rear boundary to the south-west, providing access to Moat Walk.”

Officer report

Earlier development

The house has previously received permission for extensions, a loft conversion, roof changes, internal alterations and a single-storey side extension.

“CR/2018/0122/FUL: Erection of two-storey front/rear extensions, front porch, loft conversion to include front and rear dormers, extension of roof line/raised chimney stack and internal alterations. Granted.”

“CR/1991/0548/FUL: Single storey side extension. Granted.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the proposal visually appropriate, acceptable for neighbours and manageable through controls for trees, archaeology and protected species.

“The proposed development would be undertaken close to trees and hedgerows within and on the boundary of the site, although no trees are proposed to be removed or pruned. Part of a Beech hedgerow at the western side of the house is proposed to be pruned back to facilitate the development of the rear extension and maintain suitable access.”

“The proposal is for side and rear extensions to the house and a detached garage in the front garden. The extensions would be visually appropriate and in keeping with the existing dwelling and would have no adverse effect on appearance. The garage would be located within the spacious front garden and is not considered to have no adverse effect on the appearance of the dwelling or on the surrounding area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees raised no objections, with arboricultural and archaeological matters subject to conditions.

“National Air Traffic Services (NATS): No objections CBC Planning Arboricultural Officer: No objections, subject to condition NatureSpace: No objections Place Services (Archaeology): No objections, subject to conditions…”

Officer report

Neighbour objections

Five neighbours and one anonymous objector opposed the garage because of its street impact, prominence, outlook effects, green assets and infrastructure concerns.

“Five objections have been received from neighbours along with one anonymous objection.”

“Objections are raised to the proposed garage on the grounds that there would be an adverse effect on the character of the street scene, an unduly overbearing impact and loss of outlook, potential harm to protected green assets and the effect on underground infrastructure. They also note that the garage could be placed in an alternative position, set further back into the garden with less resulting impact from the road.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbour spoke against the application, and the principal planning officer summarised the proposal and planning considerations.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the garage’s siting, the embankment, archaeological risk, outlook, screening, planting and privacy from the garage window.

“The committee then considered the application. Committee members sought clarification on the reasons for the proposed siting of the garage building, which some considered to be in close proximity to the neighbouring property (no.15).”

“In further considering the location of the garage, committee members raised concerns about the inclusion of a window on the southern façade of the garage which faced toward the neighbouring property. Officers confirmed that the view of the property from the window would not be particularly clear due to planting which acted as a partial screen.”

Minutes

Amendments and vote

Members rejected proposed obscure-glazing and vegetation-screening amendments before voting on the officer recommendation.

“An amendment to the application – the inclusion of a condition requiring obscure-glazed glass to be installed in the window of the garage – was proposed by Councillor Jaggard and seconded by Councillor Conway. As committee members did not unanimously support the proposed amendment, a recorded vote was taken. The names of the committee members voting for, against, or abstaining were as follows:”

“An amendment to the application – the inclusion of two conditions requiring vegetation screening to be planted around the garage – was proposed by Councillor Jaggard and seconded by Councillor Tidy. As committee members did not unanimously support the proposed amendment, a recorded vote was taken. The names of the committee members voting for, against, or abstaining were as follows:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee permitted the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation set out in the report. The recommendation was moved by Councillor Rana as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Jaggard.”

“Permit subject to the conditions set out in report PES/531a.”

Minutes