Agenda item

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation – Refusal

Single storey rear extension.

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the Addendum sheet to note the amendment to the reason for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting made the following points:

• The proposed extension would dismantle the already very small gardens at 41 and 43 Princess Park Lane in a local area which was lacking in green spaces
• The size and scale of the development would result in excessive density, as permission has already be granted for the erection of  a detached house on part of the rear gardens of 41 and 43 Princes Park Lane
• No objection would have been raised to this application had planning permission not already been granted for the erection of a detached house 
• Concerned about the proposed side extension at 43, as this was the main access way by which Thames Water could access the 3 access hatches to the drains located in the side garden No. 43
• Thames Water had been called out 4 times this year already
• Concerned that proposed development would be built on the 3 main hatches
• Proposed development would result in potential new house in the back garden
• Drop kerbs had already been created at 41 and 43
• Previous applications had already been opposed as proposed developments could not be allowed in the back garden.

In response to a point of clarification, the applicant confirmed that the front garden benefited from a concreted drop kerb, which enabled vehicle parking.

The applicant made the following points:

• Could not see how the extension affected the petitioner
• Considerable time had been spent rectifying inconsistencies
• Had been very flexible
• Felt that he should have been initially told that he could not proceed with the application if it was considered to be unsuitable for the site
• The proposal met with UDP requirements
• Had been told at no time that there was a problem
• Concerns were only raised two months after the application process
• Wondered why permission had been granted for No.7 Princes Park Lane

In answer to a question about the concreted front gardens at Nos.41 and 43 Princes Park Lane, the applicant confirmed that cars were not being parked in the front gardens.

A Member asked whether any Permitted Development (PD) Rights were removed when permission was granted on appeal for the erection of a detached dwelling on part of the rear gardens at Nos. 41 and 43. Officers advised that PD Rights had only been removed on the application that was allowed on appeal and that Nos. 41 and 43 still had PD rights.

A Member asked whether there had been discussions with the applicant about the different planning issues and material planning matters and added that it was unfortunate that this issue had not been addressed by the Planning Inspector at the time it went to appeal.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, and amendments the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.