Issue - meetings

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

Petitioners were in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

1. The case was complex, involving many unfortunate factors and a wrongly drawn plan by the applicant's architect.
2. The Council was accused of making an oversight and not applying local planning recommendations to set back the side wall of the rear double storey extension by 1m.
3. Their orientation to the extension was unique and critically positioned, but the Council had not applied the local recommendation.
4. The affected neighbours felt that the Council had not paid enough attention to the critical details of the planning application.
5. Residents had trusted the Council but believed they had been unfairly treated in this case.
6. The petitioners requested the Councillors reach a “no decision” on this application at this stage.
7. The planning officers' detailed report indicated that Councillors would be minded to approve the second application.
8. Residents hoped that, rather than referring to DRE guidelines and sunlight/daylight calculations, Councillors would consider the simpler build guidelines and the Council's one-metre side boundary distance policy.
9. It was pointed out that previous appeals in the road in 2019 and 2020 had met the Council's requirements to be set 1m away from shared side boundaries at first floor level and created minimal overshadowing to neighbours.
10. The neighbours argued that other referenced two-storey side extensions were not relevant to the current application.
11. It was believed that a no decision would support the nearest neighbour and retain the approval granted earlier in 2024.
12. Petitioners highlighted the need to bring important circumstances in front of the elected Planning Committee. They felt it was virtually impossible for planning permission previously granted, whether by clerical miscalculation or planning policy oversight, to be revoked.
13. It was hoped that an identical planning decision would not be made within the suburbs of the Borough of Hillingdon until changes to current planning guidance were merited.

In response to questions from Members, petitioners confirmed that a ‘no decision’ was requested at this time.

The applicant and agent for the application were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The agent emphasised the pressure his clients had been under for the past six months.
• He reported that neighbours had been aware of the proposed plans throughout the planning application stage, but complaints had only started when the first floor of the rear extension was being constructed.
• The development was constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slight inaccuracy in the relationship with the neighbouring properties.
• The agent accepted responsibility for the inaccuracy but had expected the Planning Officer to pick up any relevant discrepancy during the site visit.
• He questioned the validity of the petition, noting that over 20 signatures had come from just four households.
• It was argued that the development did not affect the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10