Rear extension and garage conversion at 43 Woodhaw, Egham

“This is a householder planning application for a single storey rear extension to the existing property. The extension would also connect to and facilitate the conversion of the existing outbuilding/garage into habitable accommodation. An updated block plan has been submitted as part of this planning application to show that the driveway to the frontage will be retained as part of the development.”

“The application site is a semi-detached bungalow dwelling with a detached rear garage accessed via a shared drive with No 42. No 42 is a further semi-detached bungalow sitting to the west of the site. The property is attached to No 44 which is situated to the east. The site is within a cul-de-sac location with the rear garden backing onto The Galanty.”

“This planning application is only for house extensions. The proposed extensions are considered to retain a suitable relationship with adjoining neighbours, are visually acceptable, and provides sufficient off-street parking for the dwelling house. The proposal is considered appropriate in all other respects and therefore is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and other material considerations.”

“FORMAL OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The HoP be authorised to grant planning permission subject to following planning conditions:”

“Consultee Comments Surrey County Council Archaeology Recommends a pre-commencement condition in relation to a Written Scheme of Investigation. This is required due to the potential for archaeological remains to be present. Runnymede Borough Council Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) a condition would be required for a gas proof membrane to prevent contamination from land affecting future occupiers.”

“Representations and comments from interested parties. 6.3. x4 Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website. 11 letters of representation have been received from individual addresses, which can be summarised as follows: • Development would increase density of site • Concerns about the development being out of character with the area, including the materials proposed • The proposal is an overdevelopment • Overbearing on…”

“A Member expressed concerns that the proposed development was substantial and somewhat out of balance compared with the size of the original property. It was however difficult to demonstrate particular planning harms which would warrant refusal from this overdevelopment.”

“Members had questions regarding concerns around the flood risk and potential for future HMO use. The flood risk designations were explained, HMO use was not the subject of…”

“The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:- • Relevant Planning conditions.”