Agenda item

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a first-floor side extension and internal alterations.

Councillor G Elson, Ward Councillor, did not support the application and thought that it was in conflict with local policies and did not make a positive impact to the street scene. Concerns and objections had been raised by the residents in the neighbouring property Elm Cottage, Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford Residents Association and Pyrford Neighbourhood Forum. Elm Cottage was a locally listed building and considered to be a heritage asset. Regarding the Outlook, Amenity and Privacy SPD, Councillor G Elson thought that there would be a detrimental effect to Elm Cottage due to a further loss of light as a result of the extension. Even though the 25-degree angle requirement had already been broken, that was not justification for a further breach. Councillor G Elson asked the Committee to consider the affect this application would have on the residents of Elm Cottage.

The Planning Officer commented that the window to the side of the room at Elm Cottage that would be affected by loss of light was the only window in the room, however the room was also served by glazed double doors that led to a glazed conservatory, that also provided light to the room. It is noted that the extension would have an impact, it would not impact the light received through the conservatory double doors.

Following a comment from Councillor G Elson regarding advice provided to the residents of Elm Cottage, the Planning Officer noted that the advice they provided to the resident was that it was their choice whether they got an independent sunlight and day light assessment carried out, however the Planning Officer would be carrying out their own assessment. They chose not to get an independent assessment and the results of the Planning Officer assessment was not what they had hoped for.

Following a question it was noted that the Conservation Officer was consulted on the application regarding the impact of the locally listed building and its setting, and they had raised no concern due to the generous plot of Elm Cottage.

A Member raised a concern about a previous application for the site that had been refused due to its impact on the next door locally listed building. The Planning Officer commented that all applications needed to be assessed on their own merit. Thomas James added that the previous application was for a new dwelling and was materially different from what was being considered by the Committee.

Councillor S Dorsett, Ward Councillor, had some concerns regarding the application and did not agree that even though the 25-degree angle had been previously breached that it was acceptable to make this worse. The Planning Officer confirmed that the 25-degree angle was already breached by the boundary treatment and the existing property.

Some Members thought that the increase in size for the property on this site had been done by stealth which was concerning.

Some Members thought that there was no reason to refuse this application and it was positive as there was a need for good quality HMOs in the area.

Following a request, Thomas James advised that an informative could be added to make the applicant aware that if they sought to increase the number of bedrooms then a new planning application would be required.

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, G Cosnahan, S Oades and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      Cllrs J Brown, S Dorsett, and L M N Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  3

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.