Agenda item

Part single storey, part two storey side/rear extension, involving demolition of existing detached garage to side and single storey extension to rear.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Part single storey, part two storey side/rear extension, involving demolition of existing detached garage to side and single storey extension to rear.

66257/APP/2010/1112

The application site was located on the south east side of Exmouth Road and comprised of a two storey end of terrace house with a detached garage along the side boundary with 76 Exmouth Road and a part single storey rear extension. The attached house, 74 Exmouth Road, lies to the south west and had a single storey rear extension. To the north east lies 78 Exmouth Road, a two storey end of terrace house with part two storey side and part two storey, part single storey rear extension and front porch. This property was set behind the front wall, but extends beyond the rear wall of the application property.

The street scene was residential in character and appearance, comprising two storey terraced houses and the application site lied within the developed area, as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

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 officers report included new plans were produced in the addendum, which showed the proposed development more clearly.  

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Mrs Ebers spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• The petitioner spoke about previous applications on this site. An application had been refused as a 2 storey was too large, another loft extension application had been approved since.
• The petitioner queried whether the loft extension application had been taken into consideration with this new application.
• The petitioner believed the applicant was careful going around planning law in order to gain approval for applications.
• The petitioner disputed the officer’s comments on the lighting in the report. She believed that the proposed development would block out some light.
• She commented on the already very limited parking on Exmouth Road. That the current driveway on the application site had enough space for one car.
• That the application if approved would involve demolishing the garage that was on the site.
• The petitioner spoke about the anti-social behaviour and problems caused by tenants at the property.
• Mrs Ebers spoke about the overcrowding the the property, the sub-letting, fights etc that had caused the police to be called out.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Ward Councillor Michael White addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Councillor White stated that this application was not just an extension but a re-build of the house.
• He believed that the development would be out of sync with the rest of the houses on the street.
• That it would be detrimental to the street scene.
• That parking would cause a problem. That they could not have more cars parked on an already overcrowded street. He went on to say it was debateable whether the garage on the service road would be used to park a car.
• The Ward Councillor stated that there was a long history of planning applications on this site.
• He asked the Committee overturned the officer’s recommendation for this application.

Chairman stated that only planning issues could be considered by the Committee. Members commented that several issues that were brought up were issues that they could not take into account when determining this planning application. These other issues could be taken up with other departments in the Council.

Members asked officers about the planning history of this application and the loft extension that was agreed. Officers stated that the loft conversion was permitted development which complied with legislation and the Council’s requirements.

Members asked clarification on the size of the development which officers responded too. The 2-storey development was for half the width of the house. The distance to the nearest property would be 2.75metres.

Members queried the issues regarding parking with officers. Officers stated that the existing garage was 2metres wide so was not really a useable garage for car parking. That removing this garage would not impact on the parking situation on the street.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report.