Rear house extension at 54 Wodeland Avenue, Guildford

What was proposed

The application proposed a ground-floor rear extension over part of an existing lower-ground or basement projection, with part of the terrace retained.

“Location: Wodeland Avenue, Guildford, GU2 4LA Proposal: Proposed ground floor rear extension over an existing lower ground / basement projection.”

“The application proposes the erection of a ground floor extension over part of the existing lower ground / basement projection, with part of the existing terrace above retained. The extension would be constructed of facing brick with a zinc or slate hipped roof on top. Bi-fold doors are proposed on the rear elevation whilst obscured glazed and fixed shut openings are proposed on the sides. A total of four rooflights are also proposed to the sides and rear.”

Officer report

The site

The detached house is in a residential street, with neighbouring properties on both sides and Guildford County School behind it.

“Wodeland Avenue is residential in character comprising mostly detached and semi-detached houses of various sizes and styles set behind reasonably shallow frontages and with a range of various sized gaps between.”

“The existing dwelling is a detached house located on the northern side of Wodeland Avenue with neighbouring property's either side and Guildford County School situated to the rear of the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a basement extension and loft conversion, a possible side extension, and lower-ground and ground-floor extensions.

“17/P/00570 - Proposed extension of basement with creation of light well and proposed loft conversion with insertion of two velux windows to east elevation. Approved with conditions - 09/05/2017”

“99/P/01042 - Extension at lower ground floor level to provide store and music room and extension at ground floor to provide conservatory. Permitted Development - 14/09/1999”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension would respect the building and area and would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.

“Policy D4 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies (LPDMP) states that development proposals should respond positively to the surrounding context, prevailing character and landscape. Policy H4 of the LPDMP adds that development proposals for residential alterations are required to have regard to the impact on the street scene and existing property such that they respect the existing context, scale, height, design, appearance and character of, and have no…”

“It is acknowledged that the extension would represent a sizeable addition to the building, however, the overall bulk and size would not be to such a degree that it would detrimentally harm the scale and character of the host dwelling.”

Officer report

Effects on neighbours

Officers considered separation, design and obscure fixed-shut side windows would prevent unacceptable loss of light, overbearing effects or privacy loss.

“In terms of overlooking/loss of privacy, the proposed extension has been designed with a narrow, full height window on its side elevation, facing No.56. Given that this would be obscured glazed and fixed shut, it would not result in loss of privacy to this neighbouring property. Furthermore, due its narrow dimension, it would not create the perception of significant overlooking.”

“With regards to overlooking/loss of privacy, the proposed extension's side elevation mirrors the aforementioned fenestration facing the neighbour on the opposite side (No.56), incorporating a narrow, full height window. This would also be obscured glazed and fixed shut thus ensuring there is no unacceptable loss of privacy/overlooking to this neighbouring property, nor the perception of significant overlooking.”

Officer report

People who spoke

Two people spoke against the application, while the applicant and the applicant’s agent spoke in support; a senior planning officer presented it.

Committee discussion

Members noted that boundary changes were not included in the description, the balcony would become smaller, and raised concern about night-time light pollution.

“The Committee discussed the application and noted that the description of the development did not include any changes to the fence and boundary and due to the extension being built on the roof of the ground floor, the balcony would decrease in size.”

“A concern was raised regarding light pollution from the side window to neighbouring properties, especially at night.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the application was proposed, seconded and carried.

“The Chairperson, Councillor Vanessa King moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00729 and Councillor Bob Hughes seconded the motion which was carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00729 be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report.”

Minutes

Main conditions

The permission required a three-year start, compliance with approved plans, and obscure fixed-shut side windows to protect neighbouring privacy.

“The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.”

“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the windows on the side elevations shall be glazed with obscure glass that accords with level three obscurity as shown on the Pilkington textured glass privacy levels (or equivalent) and fixed shut. The windows shall be permanently maintained in that condition thereafter.”

Officer report