Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension and alterations to fenestration.

Councillor A Caulfield, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application which he stated would cause loss of privacy and daylight due to its bulk and proximity. The Councillor noted that the boundary fence was very close to the existing garage and the proposed two storey extension was due to be built on the same boundary line; 30cm from the adjoining property. The daylight/sunlight to the window of the study of No.8 would be greatly reduced and the Councillor thought that this change would make the room redundant. Councillor A Caulfield also raised concern regarding trespass on the neighbouring property by potential construction scaffolding, window openings and guttering. Councillor A Caulfield noted that there were other examples on the street of extensions close to the boundary, however he did not think any of these had windows on the boundary side.

The Planning Officer commented that there was no limit in the proximity to the boundary for the single storey element and it was confirmed that in this application, the part of the property closest to the boundary would remain single storey. The two-storey element of the proposed extension would be 3.3m from the boundary and 4.4m from the side facing windows.

With regards the comments made about scaffolding, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that this would be a civil matter and was not a material planning consideration. The windows on the side east elevation would be conditioned to be obscure and non-opening and would therefore not trespass on the neighbouring property. Windows that were above 1.7m above the ground could have opening parts and the Committee discussed the possibility of these being restricted.

As written in the report, the Planning Officer had accepted that there would be some harm caused by the application, but on balance it was recommended that the application be approved. Members questioned what had outweighed this potential harm. The Planning Officer explained that paragraphs 38 and 39 detailed the loss of daylight and the reasoning why, on balance, it was considered that this room would not sustain a significant harmful loss of daylight contrary to Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012). The Planning Officer went on to explain that as part of the assessment they also considered whether they would be able to successfully defend on appeal.

Some Members were uncomfortable with the application and thought that the proposal would cause significant harm by virtue of, loss of daylight and outlook from windows.

It was noted that there was a large timber out-building on the boundary with number 6 and the extension projection would be similar to this.

Following a question from Members, the Planning Officer advised that they were not aware whether a similar situation existed on the street where there were windows close to the boundary. It was noted that several properties on the street had large extensions.

A member queried whether the side storey of the extension could be rendered to reflect the light to mitigate the daylight loss in the neighbouring property. The Planning Officer advised that the Committee needed to consider the application as it was set out before them.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, J Brown, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, P Graves, S Oades and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  7

Against:                              Cllr A Boote.

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      Cllrs L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  1

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the recommended conditions.