Rear and side extensions at 91 Wick Farm Road, Littlehampton

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey rear extension and a part side extension behind the existing garage.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONThe single storey rear extension would have a width of approximately 6.44m and a depth of approximately 3.6m. The part side extension (west) would be constructed to the rear of the existing garage. The proposal would have a width of approximately 1.97m and a depth of approximately 2.95m. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached dwelling, with the extensions positioned to the rear and side and not visible from the road.

“DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY The site is a semi-detached dwelling. This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear extension (north) elevation and part side extension (west) elevation. LU/117/25/HH”

“The single storey rear and part side extensions would not be visible from Wick Farm Road as the extensions would be sited to the north (rear) and side (west) of the dwelling, behind a garage, and are not harmful to the street scene. Both proposals would remain subservient and integrate appropriately with the dwelling.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the design, materials, scale and position would not harm the dwelling, street scene or surrounding area.

“The single storey rear extension would have a width of approximately 6.44m and a depth of approximately 3.6m. The extension would have a flat roof with an approximate height of 3m. Whilst the guidance depth outlined in the Arun Design Guide (ADG) is 3.3m it is acknowledged that the depth of the proposed extension would minimally exceed this guidance and that other dwellings within the vicinity have implemented extensions of a similar depth and scale.”

“Given the siting, size, scale, and design it would not cause demonstrable harm to visual amenity, character or appearance of the dwelling, street scene or wider area. The proposal is in accordance with ALP policies D DM1 and D DM4 and the ADG.”

Officer report

Effect on neighbours

Officers considered that the extensions would not cause significant overshadowing, overbearing effects or overlooking, while biodiversity impacts would be minimal.

“The depth of a rear extension would exceed the 3.3m depth guidance by 0.3m, as outlined within the ADG for semi-detached dwellings, however, given the flat roof form and height of the extension, that the depth would minimally exceed the guidance outlined within the ADG and the existing high boundary treatment along the eastern side boundary, the proposed rear extension would not result in significant overshadowing or overbearing impacts to the neighbour to the east.”

“BIODIVERSITY ALP policy ENV DM5 requires all developments to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. A Biodiversity Enhancement Statement accompanies this application; the part side extension (west) is replacing an existing hard-surfaced area so there is no loss of habitat. The proposed single storey rear extension (north) is partially replacing an existing hard-surfaced area and extending over a suburban garden and there is minimal loss of suburban garden habitat.”

Officer report

What people said

The Town Council and four objectors raised concerns about bulk, overdevelopment, noise, overshadowing, parking, garden space and living conditions.

“REPRESENTATIONS Littlehampton Town Council - Objection on the basis of the proposals bulk and mass as an overdevelopment of the site and the adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbours by reason of increased noise and overshadowing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors spoke to the committee before the Planning Team Leader responded to points raised.

Members’ discussion

Councillor Northeast supported approval, saying the garden would remain reasonable and there were no strong planning grounds for refusal.

“During the debate, Councillor Northeast, Ward Member stated that he had visited the site and reviewed the plans, noting that the proposed layout was consistent with modern family requirements for larger living spaces. He acknowledged the Town Council’s concerns but considered that the property would retain a reasonable garden size compared to other nearby homes and new developments.”

Minutes