Agenda item

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension incorporating a basement level, single storey side/front extension, front porch, conversion of roofspace for habitable use with 2 rear, 2 side, and 3 front rooflights and 3 skylights involving alterations to existing elevations and patio, stairwell and lightwell to the rear.

Recommendation: Approval

19 Grove Road, Northwood - 27846/APP/2012/226

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension incorporating a basement level, single storey side/front extension, front porch, conversion of roofspace for habitable use with 2 rear, 2 side, and 3 front rooflights and 3 skylights involving alterations to existing elevations and patio, stairwell and lightwell to the rear

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum.In doing so, it was noted that since the agenda had been published, two petitions in support of the application had been received.

The Chairman acknowledged that as this item had multiple petitions in support, he had decided to exercise his discretion whereby the applicant did not have an automatic right to speak for 5 minutes per petition and he was limited to 10 minutes speaking time overall (5 minutes in response to the petition in objection and 5 minutes for his two petitions in support).

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The proposed development was a severe over development of the site
• The proposed development would be out of keeping with the street scene.
• The eastward backing homes already suffered from rainwater flooding and the proposed development would increase the local flood risk.
• The proposed development would result in a loss of privacy.

The representative of the applicant raised the following points:

• The proposed development would be sympathetic to the area
• The basement development was not intrusive to the applicant’s neighbours.
• It was material that number 21 Grove Road had been granted planning permission for a basement which was approximately double the size of this application.
• The fear of flooding was unfounded.

The applicant (speaking in relation to their petitions in support) raised the following points:

• The proposed development would add to the attractiveness of the road, would not interfere with the street scene and was in keeping with the surrounding area.
• Similar applications had been made and no objections were raised by neighbours
• Number 21 Grove Road has a basement under their complete house as well as a very large elevated terrace.
• The Thames Water flood map showed no risk of flooding and groundwater was very low.
• The addition of a basement did not add to mass bulk.
• From a street scene there is no impact, as the work is below ground and there was no increase in roof height, overshadowing or indeed mass bulk.
• There was no increase in the property footprint, no impact to overlooking neighbours and no impact to the street scene.

No Ward Councillors attended.

Referring to the Addendum, the Head of Planning explained that the comment ‘the ward councillors support the officer’s report for the above application’ was a direct quote from an email from one and not all the ward councillors.

In discussing the application, Members noted that a similar proposal had been approved at 21 Grove Road and on this basis the majority of the Committee agreed the application should be approved.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed with five votes in favour with one against.

Resolved – That the application be approved as per the officer’s report.