Home extensions at 17 Kingswood Close, Englefield Green

What was proposed

The application proposed first-floor and loft extensions, rear and side extensions, a porch, altered parking and an additional vehicular crossover.

“Planning permission is sought for the construction of a first floor and loft extension including a crowned roof and two rear dormers. While at ground floor a single storey rear and side extension are proposed following the demolition of existing extension that is poor condition. To the front elevation a new porch is include together with alterations to the front drive and additional vehicular crossover.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a detached bungalow in an elevated urban position, with a rear garden adjoining a recreational club and surface-water flooding risk to the west.

“The rear garden backs onto Coopers Hill Recreational Club. The site is in the urban area. Kingswood Close is not within a conservation area. It is a street of detached sub-urban housing.”

“The site is not in an area of Fluvial Flood Risk. However, land to the west of No.17 has a risk of Surface Water Flooding.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A single-storey rear extension at the property had previously been permitted.

“The following history is relevant to this application:”

“RU.78/0497, Single-storey rear extension – Permitted.”

Officer report

What people said

Fourteen representations and a residents’ association objected over scale, character, privacy, light, overbearing effects, landscaping and surface-water runoff.

“Reduced planting in front garden. • No account of BNG. • Addition surface water runoff displaced from drive to road. • The development would increase local surface water flooding.”

“Englefield Green Village Residents Association. • The proposal is not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan 2024. • The extension is out of character and keeping with prevailing character of Kingswood Close. • The proposal will introduce harm to neighbouring properties from a significant loss of daylight, privacy, and overbearing presence. • The application ought to be refused.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about light and requested two minor changes, while the proposal’s speaker described neighbour consultation and the design’s intended benefits.

The committee’s discussion

Members noted that the rear building line would not extend and that the design reduced bulk; the light assessment found no demonstrable harm.

“The Committee noted the Officer’s report, and the presentation which highlighted that the proposed extension would not extend the rear building line, and the design sought to break up any bulk to present a residential property with an extension. An assessment of the impact on light of the south-facing windows of the neighbouring properties had been carried out and there was considered to be no demonstrable harm.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised the Head of Planning to grant permission subject to the five conditions in the officer recommendation.

“Resolved that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant permission subject to conditions 1- 5 set out in the report…”

Minutes