Home extensions and loft conversion at 75 Chiltern Crescent, Earley, Wokingham

What was proposed

The application sought a porch, first-floor side extension, part single-storey and part two-storey rear extension, and loft conversion works.

“Applicant [name withheld] Address 75 Chiltern Crescent, Earley, Wokingham, RG6 1AL Proposal Householder application for the proposed erection of a front porch extension alongside a first-floor side extension with associated side-facing fenestration, the erection of a part single- storey and part two-storey rear extension with associated rear facing fenestration and patio doors, and the erection of a rear facing dormer with Juliet balcony and three front-facing roof…”

“191783 Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension with the insertion of 2 no. roof lights, plus part single storey, part two storey side extension following demolition of existing garage and single storey rear extension 23/09/2019, Approved 230049 Householder application for the proposed erection of single storey side extension to create habitable accommodation. 21/02/2023, Approved…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home in an established area of generally uniform semi-detached properties with some extensions and alterations.

“1) The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within an established residential area. The surrounding locality is characterised by pairs of semi-detached properties that are generally uniform in design and appearance, with some variations resulting from extensions and alterations.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered rear and side extensions, a widened driveway, and a loft conversion with a hip-to-gable roof and rear dormer.

“242034 Application for non-material amendment to planning consent 230049 for a widened driveway. (Retrospective) 13/11/2024, Approved 251690 Application for a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed loft conversion, hipped to gable with a rear dormer. Including internal alterations and the addition of roof lights. 05/09/2024, Approved…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the design acceptable, with no unacceptable effects on character, neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and recommended approval with conditions.

“16) The proposed single storey front extension to form a porch is modest in terms of height, depth and design. The proposal is clearly subservient to the host dwelling and there are other examples of front porch extensions of various sizes and designs in the surrounding street scene. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area.”

“34) In summary, the proposal is not considered to harm the character of the area or neighbouring amenity, and no adverse impact on highway safety is anticipated.”

Officer report

Objections and responses

Objections concerned the roof form, landscaping, parking, light, privacy and construction activity; officers addressed the planning issues and excluded construction matters from this assessment.

“Officer comment: The issues raised in relation to previous construction activity, site management, and cooking odours are not material planning considerations in the assessment of this application. These matters fall outside the scope of the current proposal…”

“The Whitegates Residents Association - Objects to the proposal on the grounds that it would harm the character and appearance of Chiltern Crescent. They raise concerns that the proposed gable-end roof, together with the absence of front garden soft landscaping, would be visually incongruous and out of keeping with the street’s prevailing hip-end roof forms, grass verges, and trees.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke against the application, and a resident spoke against concerns about the balcony, privacy and the roof’s character.

The committee discussion

Members discussed permitted development, possible appeal prospects and whether the Juliet balcony would cause unacceptable overlooking.

“In response to concerns over the Juliet balcony providing unacceptable overlooking of surrounding residences, it was confirmed that a degree of overlooking between properties was common in urban areas, and that the installation would not provide an unacceptable level of overlooking.”

“The amount of approved extensions within the area was acknowledged, with it being suggested that should the application be rejected, it would likely be overturned on appeal.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions and informatives attached to the officer recommendation.

“APPROVAL subject to conditions and informatives set out on pages 21-22 of the report.”

Minutes