Issue - meetings

Alterations of garage roof, erection of a three-storey side extension with balcony and balustrade, alterations to fenestration, and demolition of chimney

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation and changes in the addendum.

Alterations of garage roof, erection of a three-storey side extension with balcony and balustrade, alterations to fenestration, and demolition of chimney

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection to the proposed development addressed the Committee and referred to slides that were circulated to Members and officers prior to the meeting. A background of the application was provided, and this was the third time the petitioner had addressed the Committee. It was submitted that the proposed development caused irreversible harm to the character of the area, overbearing issues and breached the 45-degree angle. Significant concerns were raised about the application facilitating the use of the property as a future house in multiple occupancy (HMO) or hotel.  It was questioned why the 45-degree breach had been accepted in this application as it was understood to go against guidelines. It was further submitted that the Planning Inspector’s decision had been dismissed by officers and there had been a disregard for the petitioner’s living conditions. It was submitted that the Planning Inspector had raised concerns regarding the extension’s height, bulk and proximity, indicating that it would impact the outlook of the office window creating a sense of enclosure. It was further alleged that the house had hardly been occupied since 2022. The petitioner strongly objected to the application and asked for the planning application to be refused.

The applicant addressed the Committee and strongly objected to the assertion that the property would be used as a hotel or an HMO. The applicant stated that the house was and would continue to be used as a family home, and a history of the application was provided. It was submitted that although many residents objected to the application there were also residents that supported the application. It was submitted that there was still more than enough room to build on the site plot without obstructing views of the canal. Existing privacy and overlooking concerns were alleged in respect of the applicant’s back garden. The applicant stated that the application had been made to accommodate a family unit and it was submitted that the Planning Inspector had indicated that the neighbouring property would be barely impacted by scheme. It was further submitted that the scheme would provide more privacy by removing the existing upstairs side elevation window. The applicant stated that they had compromised in the proposal, and it was submitted that his family was being denied the opportunity to improve their living space.

Councillor Martin Goddard addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioner. The Chairman exercised his discretion in allowing Councillor Goddard to address the Committee in Ward Councillor Jane Palmer’s absence due to personal circumstances and the fact that the property was located on the border of Ickenham and Harefield. It was highlighted that the meeting in October 2023 was adjourned to verify whether the 45-degree angle had been breached. Although it was confirmed that there was a breach, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36