Agenda item

Single storey side/rear extension.

Deferred from North Committee 21 Feb 2012

Recommendation: Approval

5 Poplars Close, Ruislip - 61775/APP/2011/1204

Single storey side/rear extension - Deferred from North Committee 21 Feb 2012

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum. It was noted that since the publication of the agenda, a petition in objection to the proposal had been received. This new petition ensured a representative of the petitioners could address this subsequent meeting after the item had been deferred in February 2012 (when they last spoke at committee).

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 would be over dominant and an over development of the site.
• The plans were of poor quality and poor design
• The useable size of rear garden had been reduced by a very large brick outbuilding built in 2008 at the bottom of the rear garden. The plans of the garden size indicate the garden was bigger than it actually was and plan fails to show the outbuilding.
• The irregular shape on the plot would be incompatible with surroundings and conservation area status;
• The roof of the proposal would reduce daylight to No. 7 Poplars Close and add to a hemming in effect to No. 7 Poplars Close;
• The proposal would extend well beyond existing building line and would not maintain existing spaces between properties.
• The proposed design would significantly reduce amenity space and lead to a terracing effect.

The agent or applicant did not attend the meeting.

All three ward Councillors were in attendance and one ward Councillor spoke. The following points were raised:

• The proposed development was totally unacceptable
• The officer report was incorrect as the dwelling contained 5 bedrooms and not 4 as stipulated in the report.
• The proposed development would create parking problems
• The proposed development would have a significant visual impact
• The proposed development would lead to further loss of amenity as the  site had been a building site for several years

In discussing the application, the Chairman and Labour Lead confirmed they had both attended a site visit to assess the application. Officers were asked whether there were any right to light issues arising from the application and the Committee were informed that this was not an issue. When discussing the likely visual impact of the proposal, it was noted that the height of the single storey extension would be lower than the height of the next door fence line.

The Committee raised concerns about the development evolving into a home of multiple occupation and enquired whether a condition could be imposed to safeguard against this possibility. The Committee also expressed concerns about the number of external flues as shown in the photographs contained in the officer presentation. In both cases, officers confirmed that conditions could be introduced to address these concerns.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved as per the officer’s report subject to the addition of two further conditions  relating to occupation as a single family dwelling only and details of any external flue to be submitted (to the Planning Department for approval).