First-floor extension above the existing kitchen and bathroom. The extension will be comprised of 2x roof lights and 1x new sash windows to the rear elevation.
The committee considered planning application P23/S2229/HH for first-floor extension above the existing kitchen and bathroom. The extension will be comprised of 2x roof lights and 1x new sash windows to the rear elevation, at 167 Greys Road Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1TE.
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application related to a Victorian terraced property in Henley-on-Thames. The property was neither listed nor in a conservation area. The planning officer advised the committee there had been a number of applications at the property this year. He then went through these applications which included a rear dormer which was done through permitted development, a small dormer on the front elevation similar to others seen in the street, a flat roof single story extension which could be carried out under permitted development and a rear two storey extension which was refused planning permission due to the impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and that the side facing windows and depth of the extension would be harmful to the neighbouring amenity.
The planning officer informed the committee that the application before them was only for the first-floor extension with a pitched roof. He advised that the application had been narrowed to set the extension away from the neighbouring property, that it adhered to the 45-degree rule of thumb from the Joint Design Guide and no objections had been received from neighbours. The planning officer highlighted that the town council had objected to the application but that the type of extension was common to Victorian buildings in the town and the front of the property remained largely unaltered. He further advised that there were similar extensions in the area and there was no public visibility of the rear of the property. The planning officer concluded that the application before the committee addressed the previous refusal reasons and was therefore recommended for approval.
There were no registered speakers for this item.
The committee asked the planning officer to confirm that there had been eight applications on the site since 29 March 2023 and enquired as to why the dormer was not shown on the submitted plans. The planning officer confirmed that the application before the committee was for just the blue edged development on the associated plans. Both the rooflights and front dormer could be built under permitted development rights and therefore the planning officer was of the view it was not material to the application that the front elevations showed rooflights.
The committee asked the planning officer how this application differed from the previous flat roof extension other than that the application before the committee was for a pitched roof. The planning officer advised that the application before the committee was not of the same imposing nature as the previous application as it had been moved away from the neighbouring property. The planning officer also confirmed that the Joint Design Guide discouraged flat roofs but that the current application with a traditional pitched roof was compliant with the design guide.
The committee enquired as to whether there was a limit on the number of applications which can be put in on the same site. The planning officer advised that there was not a limit on the number of applications which could be submitted but that not all the applications had been for full planning permission on the site.
A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.
The committee commented that there were a number of similar extensions in the area and that this was the only realistic way for people to extend the properties to allow a better standard of living. There had also been no objections from neighbours. The committee noted that a lot of the works to the property could be carried out under permitted development rights.
RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/S2229/HH, subject to the following conditions:
1. Commencement of development within 3 years
2. Development to be in accordance with the approved plans
3. Materials & details to be as shown on plans & supporting documents