Two-storey house extension at 5 Berkeley Gardens, West Byfleet

What was proposed

The application sought extensions, a first floor above the bungalow, a two-storey house and alterations to the side roof.

“Erection of a proposed two-storey front extension, a single-storey rear extension to the existing side extension, a first-floor addition above the current dwelling to create a two-storey house, a single- storey front extension and alterations to the side roof.”

“The planning application seeks permission for the proposed erection of a two-storey front extension, single storey front and rear extensions, the addition of a first floor above the current dwelling to create a two-storey house and alterations to the side roof.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a single-storey detached house at the end of a cul-de-sac, with neighbouring two-storey houses, trees and a detached garage.

“The application site is a single storey, detached house located on the south-west side of Berkeley Gardens, West Byfleet at the end of the cul-de-sac. The walls are constructed with London Stock Bricks with plain red concrete tiles used on the roof. There is a detached double garage in the frontage which acts as a focal point at the terminus of the cul-de-sac. The south- west side of Berkeley Gardens is characterised by two house types; nos.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeals

Earlier schemes were refused for street scene and neighbour impacts, while the current design changes the setbacks, materials, roof profile and height.

“The property has an extensive planning history, particularly relevant to consideration of the current planning application is a co-joined appeal decision made on the 15 April 2025 concerning the two most recent refusals of planning permission (PLAN/2024/0595 & PLAN/2024/0538).”

“The proposal, by reason of the proximity of two storey-built form to the boundary, would fail to respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and character of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to policies CS21 and CS24 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012), policy BE1 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Supplementary Planning Document Woking Design (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal was considered acceptable for the street scene, neighbours, trees, parking and private amenity space.

“Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2016) states, among other things, that “Trees, hedgerows and other vegetation of amenity and/or environmental significance or which form part of the intrinsic character of an area must be considered holistically as part of the landscaping treatment of new development.”

“Policy OS5 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan (2016-2027) states that “The wooded and leafy character of Pyrford is an important asset to the community: (a) Development proposals should be accompanied by a tree survey that establishes the health and longevity of any trees impacted by the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

The tree officer accepted the arboricultural information, while neighbourhood representations and residents raised concerns alongside support for the proposal.

“Arboricultural Officer – “The arboricultural information provided is considered acceptable and should be complied with in full, this includes a pre-commencement meeting with the LA tree Officer. Details of the foundation design will be required prior to any works on site and should show the proposed in relation to the existing ground level.”

“Pyrford Neighbourhood Forum – 2 representations received (13.08.2025 & 16.09.2025). The first gave positive support for the proposal but raises concerns with regards to the impact of the development on nearby trees. The second raises objections with regards to the impact on the street scene and impact on the setting of Darenth (a locally-listed building) and states the proposal conflicts with Neighbourhood Plan policies BE1 and DM20.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker objected to the application and the applicant spoke in support at the meeting.

The committee debate

Members considered the revised design, matching features, reduced roof height, light and outlook, and whether earlier appeal concerns had been addressed.

“Planning Officers advised that the current proposal had been revised following pre- application discussions and was materially different from the previously refused schemes. The proposed first floor extension was set back from the boundary and incorporated a flat roof element to reduce bulk and improve light access to neighbouring properties.”

“Members discussed the design and impact of the proposal in detail. It was noted that the revised scheme was more in keeping with the character of the street, with matching materials and architectural features. The reduction in roof height adjacent to number 4 was considered to improve the existing situation in terms of light and outlook. Members acknowledged the concerns raised but felt that the proposal had addressed the issues identified in the previous appeal decisions.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to conditions.

“That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Permission included conditions on approved plans, materials, tree protection, foundation details, obscure glazing and additional openings.

“++ No development related works shall be undertaken on site until full details of the proposed foundation design (which shows the proposed in relation to the existing ground level) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.”

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows, dormer windows, rooflights, doors or other additional openings, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be formed in the south-east and north-west facing flank elevations of the extension hereby permitted without…”

Officer report