19/P/01039 – 14 A Tangier Road, Guildford 1

Not to scale

App No: 19/P/01039 8 Wk Deadline: 14/08/2019Appn Type: Full ApplicationCase Officer: Chris GentParish: Christchurch Ward: ChristchurchAgent : Applicant: Mr Rakshit

14A Tangier RoadGuildfordSurreyGU1 2DE

Location: 14A Tangier Road, Guildford, GU1 2DEProposal: Erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey front

extension and raising the height of the roof to create habitableaccommodation (amended plans received on 12/08/2019 showingthe single storey front extension reduced in depth by 1.8m, in linewith the lean-to element)

Executive Summary

Reason for referral

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters ofobjection have been received, contrary to the Officer's recommendation.

Key information

Erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey front extension and raising the height of theroof to create habitable accommodation (amended plans received on 12/08/2019 showing thesingle storey front extension reduced in depth by 1.8m, in line with the lean-to element)

Summary of considerations and constraints

This application seeks permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension, single storeyfront extension and raising the height of the roof to create habitable accommodation.

The proposed development's size and design would not have an adverse affect on the contextand character of the adjacent buildings and immediate surroundings.

There are no neighbour amenity or parking issues.

The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve - subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of threeyears from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with plansreceived on 21/06/2019 and amended plans received on 14/08/2019.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with theapproved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The first floor window in the north-west elevation of the development herebyapproved shall be obscured glazed and non-opening unless the parts of thewindows which can be opened are more than 1.7metres above the floor of theroom in which the window is installed.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

Informatives:1. If you need any advice regarding Building Regulations please do not hesitate to

contact Guildford Borough Council Building Control on 01483 444545 orbuildingcontrol@guildford.gov.uk

2. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town andCountry Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach todevelopment proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactivemanner by:

Offering a pre application advice serviceWhere pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has beenfollowed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising duringthe course of the applicationWhere possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issuesidentified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessarynegotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significantchanges to an application is required.

In this case pre-application advice was sought and provided which addressedinitial issues. The application has been submitted in accordance with that advice,however, further issues were identified during the consultation stage of theapplication. Officers have worked with the applicant to overcome these issues.

Officer's Report

Site description

The application site is located within the urban area of Guildford. The site comprises a two storeydetached house with plain clay tiled pitched roof with brick elevations.

Proposal

Erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey front extension and raising the height of theroof to create habitable accommodation (amended plans received on 12/08/2019 showing thesingle storey front extension reduced in depth by 1.8m, in line with the lean-to element)

Relevant planning history

19/P/00174 - Erection of a two-storey side extension following demolition of existing garage,single storey front extension and raising of the roof. Withdrawn - 25/02/2019.

14/P/01219 - Two storey side extension to incorporate garage. Loft conversion and raising of roofto accommodate dormer windows to front and rear elevations. Refused on 26/08/2014 for thefollowing reasons:

1). The proposed development, by virtue of the combination of the excessive scale and numberof the proposed dormer windows, the excessive width, three-storey appearance, and lack ofvisual subservience of the two storey side extension would result in an adverse impact on thescale and character of the dwelling.

2). By virtue of the proximity of the side extension to the boundary of the site, the addition woulderode the gap to 14 Tangier Road at first floor level between the dwellings at first floor level withinTangier Road and the three-storey appearance of the side extension would also fail to retain thecharacter of the host property and would appear incongruous within the street scene.

An appeal was lodged against this refusal which was dismissed on 29/01/2015.

The Planning Inspector upheld the Council's view and substantiated it further with thefollowing comments:

The two-storey side extension would be a bulky addition to the house and would breach thebuilding line on this side of the street. Its ridge would not be set down from that of the hostproperty so that it would not appear subordinate and the front protruding gable would dominatethe front elevation. In particular the height of the eaves of the front facing gable, above those ofthe main dwelling, would appear awkward and would not represent a good design solution. Theproposed extension would therefore appear prominent and out of keeping with the street scene.In my view its width, bulk and height would overwhelm the original simple design of the house tothe detriment of its overall appearance.

The raising of the ridge together with the inclusion of so many dormer windows would give theroof a cluttered and top-heavy appearance. Whilst some properties in the street include dormerwindows, these appear to have formed part of the original design rather than being added at alater date. I consider that the proposed dormers would appear incongruous additions to thisparticular dwelling, whose design reflects the era during which it was constructed.

The proposal would introduce a gable end wall in close proximity to the shared boundary with No14. The juxtaposition of the new flank wall of No 14a to the hipped roof of No 14 would result in asignificant reduction in the gap at first floor level between these adjoining properties. This wouldbe detrimental to the spacious rhythm of development that characterises the existing streetscene.

Consultations

Downsedge Residents Association - raise objection to the proposal for the following reasons:

two storey extension would not be subservient to the original buildingproposal would extend beyond the established building lineoverbearing/dominant within the street scene and to the neighbouring property No.14featureless 9m deep flank wall to views up the road

Third party comments:

11 letters have been received raising the following objections and concerns:

proposal brings building line significantly forward of the existing lineproposed single storey study extension extends approximately 3m forward of the existingfront elevation (Officer note: The applicant has submitted amended plans showing the singlestorey element reduced in depth by 1.8m)overbearing to No.14 Tangier Roaddominant to street scene,harmful to the character of the roadgable front design is atypical of neighbouring housesconcerns regarding loss of light/overbearing affectconcerns regarding disruption during constructionroof is excessive and out of proportion with neighbouring propertiesno subordinate ridge line for two storey infill side extensionconcerns regarding parking following creation of a 5-6 bedroom housesize of extension is disproportionate to the surrounding properties and too big for the plotconcerns that if the application is granted, a further application would be submitted for a HMO

Planning policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (revised on 24 July 2018)Chapter 12. Achieving well-designed places

Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (adopted by Council on 25 April 2019)The Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites was adopted by Council on 25 April 2019.The Plan carries full weight as part of the Council’s Development Plan. The Local Plan 2003policies that are not superseded are retained and continue to form part of the Development Plan(see Appendix 8 of the Local Plan: strategy and sites for superseded Local Plan 2003 policies).

Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007): Policy H8Policy G1(3)Policy G5

Supplementary planning documents

Residential Extensions and Alterations Guide 2018

Planning considerations

The proposed changes to the development from that proposed under the previously refusedscheme (application 14/P/01219) are:

two storey extension's side wall has been pulled in from the side shared boundary by 0.6m(resulting in an overall gap of 1.5m)dormer windows removedchange to roof form from gable ends to hipped endseaves and height of front gable reducedsecond floor front gable window removedfront ground floor bays extended forwards

The main planning considerations in this case are:

impact on the scale and character of the existing building and the surrounding areaimpact on neighbour amenityparking issues

Impact on the scale and character of the existing building and the surrounding area

Tangier Road is characterised by two-storey, detached properties set in well proportioned plots.Although located within a residential area there is generally good spacing between dwellingsgiving a more open aspect.

No 14a differs from many of the surrounding properties, as it is an infill dwelling that wasconstructed in 1972 and comprises a simple design including a pitched roof. A detached garagewith a pitched roof occupies the space between Nos 14 and 14a. The proposal seeks toconstruct a two-storey side extension that would incorporate the garage and would projectbeyond the existing front elevation. The roof would be raised by 1.4m to provide habitableaccommodation within the roof.

The proposed changes to the previously refused scheme are noted; the two storey extension (atboth ground and first floor level) has been pulled in 0.6m from the shared boundary resulting inan overall gap of 1.5m, the roof form now incorporates hipped ends instead of gable ends, theeaves and height of the front gable has been reduced and the dormer windows have beenremoved. In addition, the second floor front gable window has been removed and the frontground floor bays have been extended forwards.

Following these changes, the size, bulk and mass of the extension has been reduced and asufficient level of subservience has been created through the lowering of the front gable end'sridge line, despite its location at the front.

The Inspector raised concern over the stepping forward of the extension from surroundingbuildings and whilst this point has not entirely been addressed the current proposal must beconsidered in the whole. Taking this into consideration along with the increased distance at firstfloor level between the application property and 14 Tangier Road following the side wall beingpulled back combined with the introduction of hipped ends, the proposal would respect thespacing of development that characterises the existing street scene.

The size, height and design of the proposed building would provide an appropriate transition inbuilding heights from the application building and the lower 14 Tangier Road and the proposedmaterials, eaves height, and fenestration arrangements would be in keeping.

Given the above, the proposal would not have an adverse affect on the context and character ofthe immediate surroundings.

Impact on neighbour amenity

The neighbouring properties most affected by the proposal are 14 Tangier Road, 19 St OmerRoad and 21 St Omer Road which are the immediate neighbours to the north-west, south andsouth-east of the site respectively.

14 Tangier Road - due to the relationship between the application dwelling and this neighbouringbuilding, together with the lack of windows on this neighbour's catslide roof, the proposal wouldnot result in unacceptable loss of light or overbearing affect to this property.

With regard to privacy, the proposal includes a first floor rear window which serves a dressingarea to a bedroom. Although views would be possible from this window towards 14 TangierRoad's rear garden, these would be at an oblique angle and towards the rear part of the garden.As such, this would not result in unacceptable overlooking/loss of privacy over and above thecurrent situation.

There is one first floor side window proposed facing 14 Tangier Road which serves an en-suite.To prevent any issues of overlooking/loss of privacy, a condition is recommended to ensure thiswindow is obscured glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which are capable ofopening are no lower than 1.7m above the finished floor level.

19 St Omer Road - Although views would be possible from the proposed rear window androoflights towards this neighbours rear garden, these would be towards the rear part of thegarden and would not result in significant additional overlooking over and above the applicationproperty's existing first floor rear windows.

21 St Omer Road - no neighbour amenity issues raised

Parking issues

The existing garage would be demolished as part of the proposal however there would still bespace on site for the parking of two cars in accordance with the Council's Vehicle ParkingStandards SPD 2006.

Conclusion

Overall the current proposal offers a significant improvement over the previously refused schemeand now represents a development which does not cause any particular harm to the character ofthe area and host dwelling and would respect the visual amenity of the street scene.