Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Householder application for proposed erection of single storey front extension, first floor front and side extensions, conversion of existing garage to provide habitable accommodation and internal alterations.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Hira.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application set out in agenda pages 13 to 32.

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.

Richard Kind, Neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Richard thanked the Committee for considering the application in further detail after their recent site visit to the property. He stated that a chartered surveyor had conducted a desktop study of the proposed application and was concerned that the surveyor had not conducted a site visit. Richard added that the surveyor acknowledged that a consequence of construction could include a reduction in natural light to the neighbouring lounge flank window, and Richard felt that this contravened Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC) policy. Richard stated that the surveyor did not comment on the increase from 60 degrees to 75 degrees between the neighbouring properties as a result of the proposed development. Richard added that the Borough Design Guide stated that developments should have consistent gaps to avoid a terracing effect, and should be in keeping with the character of the area. Richard felt that the proposed front extension would increase the impact on the street scene adversely and the extension was an overdevelopment. Richard added that the proposed application would remove all of the soft landscaping to the front of the property.

Mr Pauljit Hira, Applicant, spoke in support of the application. Pauljit thanked the Committee for taking to time to conduct a site visit and to consider this application. He stated that this application was a necessary increase in space for his growing family, and felt that his neighbour’s objections had been addressed thoroughly within the Officer’s report. Pauljit outlined examples of other nearby properties, such as 3 and 5 Medway Close, which had no soft landscaping to the front of their properties. He added that there were also examples of 1^st floor extensions (similar in design to the proposed application) within the area, and felt that this made the proposed application in keeping with the street scene. Pauljit stated that in terms of amenity space, his garden was currently lager than his neighbour’s and this would still be the case should the proposed application be approved. He felt that the existing trees in his neighbour’s garden would have a larger impact on light loss than the proposed development would have.

Stefan Fludger, Case Officer, clarified several point raised by the speakers. He stated that the Surveyor’s letter did not state whether a site visit had been conducted, but even if it was only a desktop study they were a qualified expert in their field and had come to a conclusion which supported the Officer recommendation for approval. Stefan stated that there would be a one metre separation distance to the boundary, which was in line with guidelines and would not create a terracing effect. Stefan added that the removal of soft landscaping to supply more car parking space for the applicant would not be harmful to or out of keeping with the character of the area.

Chris Bowing commented that his main concern with the application was the loss of light to the neighbouring dwelling. He added that the existing trees in the garden of the applicant’s property already caused a significant loss of light, and felt that the proposed development would not significantly change this. He felt that the Surveyor’s conclusions were sound, and he stated that he was inclined to approve the application based on the above.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried what the neighbouring side room (adjacent to the proposed extension) was currently used for. Stefan Fludger stated that it was currently used as a utility room.

Carl Doran queried how much of the proposed application would come under the existing permitted development rights. Stefan Fludger stated that the rear extension would be covered by this, and possibly the driveway hard standing. 

RESOLVED: That application 182236 be approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 16 to 18.