Retrospective house extensions at 48 Queen Elizabeth Way, Kingfield, Woking

“The Committee considered a retrospective application for a single-storey rear, side and front extension with additional ground floor lean-to.”

“PLAN/2024/0920, which at present is pending consideration with the draft recommendation for refusal, and therefore does not benefit from planning permission and does not set a precedent for this type of development. The proposed lean-to carries some level of visibility from the public realm, particularly to the east, where there is separation between the detached neighbouring property no.48, and the application site.”

“In summary, the proposed lean-to represents an uncharacteristically deep and wide retrospective “extension to an extension”. It fails to demonstrate subservience to the simple form of the original dwelling, and it has led to the uncharacteristic overdevelopment of the site. The proposed lean-to also appears visibly out of character in the locality, whereby there are no notable examples of similar additions.”

“In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment, or SuDS proposal, the LPA cannot be satisfied that the proposal does not increase the risk of fluvial and surface water flooding within and outside of the site and therefore cannot be satisfied that the proposals comply with the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies CS9.”

“The proposals as submitted therefore fall contrary to the advice contained within the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s) Design (2015) and Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight (2022), the provisions of the Woking Core Strategy (2012) Policies CS9 ‘Flooding and Water Management’ CS21 ‘Design’ and CS24 ‘Woking’s Landscape and Townscape’, and the provisions of Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024).”

“The total length of the garden of no.44 notwithstanding the large rear outbuilding is 19.3m though it can reasonably be assumed that the area of garden subject to the highest intensity of use lies closest to the dwelling and neighbouring unauthorised lean to.”

“In summary, the application site is located within fluvial Flood Zone 2 and no site-specific Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. In the absence of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase fluvial flood risk elsewhere or exacerbate the existing fluvial flood risk situation.”

“With regard to surface water, the site lies within a Medium (1 in 1000 year) surface water flood risk level. It is the usual approach of the Local Planning Authority to attach a condition requiring submission of details of a scheme for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system, prior to commencement.”

“The refusal of the previous application, 2024/0952 48 Queen Elizabeth Way, affected this application. The Committee agreed the two refusal reasons as set out in the report but added an additional further refusal reason that the application be refused (the same as APP/2024/0952) on the grounds that the retrospectively built single storey front extension represented a highly visible, insubordinate and bulky addition to the front elevation which would be out of character with…”

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons as set out in the report and the additional reason as noted in these minutes.”