Agenda item

64909/APP/2011/1165

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, single storey front extension and conversion of existing integral garage and store into habitable space involving the installation of 2 rear rooflight and 1 front rooflight.

Recommendation: Approval

Part  two  storey,  part  single  storey  side/rear  extension,  single  storey  front extension and conversion of existing integral garage and store into habitable space involving the installation of 2 rear rooflight and 1 front rooflight.

64909/APP/2011/1165

The application site was located on the west side of Raisins Hill and comprises a two storey semi-detached  dwelling with  a  fully  hipped  roof  and  bay window  detail  to  both  the  front and rear elevations. An original attached garage with store room behind was located on the north west elevation. The garage was set 0.6m from the boundary with the adjacent property no.43 and flush with the front elevation of the main house. The house was set back 8m from the  road with a 5m wide  front driveway and  lawned area with hedge separating  the site from the adjoining semi (No.39). A 22m garden runs to the rear. The adjoining property, No.39,  had  recently  carried  out  a  hip  to  gable  loft  conversion  with  rear  dormer,  under permitted  development,  and  was  currently  completing  a  single  storey  side,  front  and  rear extension approved  in September 2010. The street scene  was  residential  in character and appearance  and  the  application  site  lies within  the Developed Area,  as  identified  in  the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Planning permission was sought to demolish the existing garage and store to the side and construct  a  two  storey  side  extension  and  a  part  two  storey/part  single  storey  rear extension.

To  the  rear,  the proposed single storey extension would measure 3.6m deep with a 3m high flat roof. The two storey element would commence 3.1m from the boundary with the adjoining  property  (No.39)  and  measure  2.6m  deep.  The  two  storey  extension  would measure  4.9m wide  projecting  out  from  the  side  elevation  by  1.5m,  stopping  1m  away from the boundary with No.43 and wrapping around the side elevation stopping 1m short of the front elevation of the house. To the side of the house, the roof of the proposed two storey extension would be at 0.5m below the ridge.

24  neighbouring  properties  and  the  Northwood  Hills  Residents  Association  had  been consulted.  16  individual  letters  and  a  petition  with  46  signatories  had  been  received objecting to the proposal

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

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Mr Winscom spoke on behalf of the petitioners.

·        He spoke about the history of the application which had been discussed previously.

·        A previous application had been rejected and on appeal.

·        The new application was basically the same as previous so residents had signed a new petition.

·        The dark alleyway would have an effect on residents and the application would have an effect on the neighbouring garden.

·        It was a significant and overbearing development.

·        The petitioner raised points that were brought up in the planning inspectors report.

·        It was detrimental to the appearance of dwellings and character of the area.

·        It failed to harmonise with the street scene.

·        The garden scene was particularly important to note.

·        Petitioners felt that the application should be rejected as there was no real change to the original application.

·        It was conflicting to policy.

·        Petitioners urged the Committee to reject the application.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·        Mr Shah spoke on behalf of the applicant.

·        His clients brought the house as a family home, it was growing family.

·        The extension to the front and side was in keep with the existing street scene.

·        The development would not harm the frontage.

·        There were no previous issues.

·        There rear width projections were in-line with policy.

·        The adjoining neighbour had no objection to the application.

·        The house needed severe overhaul.

·        There was no intention to divide the house into flats or have multiple occupants. The development was for a family home.

Councillor Andrew Retter was present and spoke as a Ward Councillor:

·        Councillor Retter asked the Committee to consider how they would feel if this application was to be built on their own street or own back yard.

·        He stated that the adjoining neighbour did sign the petition objecting to the application.

·        He understood that people did need to extend property but people needed to consider the area and harmonise.

·        He disagreed with the officer report that this application harmonised with existing street scene.

·        It did not compliment the area.

·        Members should take into consideration the light aspect, which would have a detrimental effect on neighbours.

·        Car parking issues needed to be considered.

·        Residents had petitioned a number of times for a residents parking scheme.

·        There were also human rights to consider for both the applicant and residents.

Members requested clarification from officers on the size and depth of the application. These were both within the requirements. The application had reduced since the appeal and the Inspector did not dismiss the appeal on this basis.

The Legal Officer stated that the Human Rights Act was relevant to planning policy and this needed to balanced with Council policy.

Members discussed the front and street scene impact. Members noted the emotional issues regarding this application and how the petitioners felt about the application.

Members had carried out a site visit and discussed the front and rear extensions to the property.

It was noted that the last application was dismissed by the planning inspector on street scene reasons and not bulk or impact of the frontage.

Members were concerned about the detrimental impact that the application could have on neighbours.

On being put to vote Members voted by 4:3 to refuse the application with reasons relating to the impact on the adjoining occupier. The officer recommendation was overturned. Councillors Dave Allam and Jazz Dhillon wished to record this dissent at the decision.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority of 4:3. The reasons for refusal concerned the rear extension and there were concerns with its compliance with policy BE21.

Resolved –

That the application be refused and the officers recommendation as per the agenda be overturned. Details of conditions to be agreed with the Chairman.