Agenda item

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension involving demolition of garage to side.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension involving demolition of garage to side.

Officers introduced the application, which was for an extension to an existing two storey, semi-detached property located on the east side of Raisins Hill. The property was within the Raisins Hill area of special local character. Six letters and a petition had been received in objection to the proposals. The main issues for Members to consider were the impact on appearance and character of the existing property and the street scene and the impact on adjoining occupiers.

The Council's supplementary planning document on residential extensions set out the standards for these aspects. This document required that two storey side extensions for semi detached properties should be set in from the boundary of neighbouring properties by at least one metre and should be set back at least one metre from the main roof elevation, set below the main ridge by at least half a metre and should not be more than half to two thirds the width of the original property. The proposed extension would be set in by more than one metre from the boundary with the neighbouring property, set back from the front elevation by one metre, would have a roof set below the main ridge by half a metre and was not more than half or two thirds of the main width of the original property. Therefore, the two storey side extension would be in full compliance with the Council standards. In relation to the single storey rear extension, the Council standards required that the depth should not exceed 3.6 metres and the maximum height should not exceed 3.1 metres, for a flat roof. The proposed single storey rear extension also complied with Council policies.

The proposals were not considered to impact unduly on the character and appearance of the existing property or the street scene. Both of the adjoining properties had been extended at ground floor level and in one case, also at roof level. The proposed extensions at the application site did not go beyond the extensions at the adjoining properties. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The application proposed the conversion of a three bedroom, one bathroom house into a five bedroom, three bathroom house.

·         The extension would be of a significant size, with a 74% increase in frontage and a 100% floor area increase. It would be an overdevelopment for the area that would not harmonise with the existing street scene.

·         There would be an impact on the street scene and on the area of special local character and the property would be unbalanced when compared to the adjoining semi-detached property.

·         It was considered that a number of policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan could be cited as possible reasons for refusal of the application. These included policies BE5, BE13 and BE19.

·         The view over the single storey level would erode the area of special local character. The Planning Inspector had considered that the views into back gardens formed part of the setting of an area of special local character as part of an appeal decision in relation to number 2 Raisins Hill.

·         The point of the Area of Special Local Character was to try to preserve the character of the area, as it stood. It was questioned what the purpose was of such an area if the development was to be permitted anyway.

·         A drainage channel passed directly under the proposed two storey extension. Flood prevention was an important civic amenity for residents. The planning authority had a duty of care to residents with regard to this matter.

·         As a compromise, the Committee could consider restricting the development to a single storey extension.

In response to a Member question which asked whether there had been similar developments to the proposals in the vicinity of the application, the petitioner stated that a similar extension had been proposed at number 41 Raisins Hill around two years ago. This had been rejected and subsequently rejected at appeal.

In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the applicant addressed the meeting in response to the petitioner and made the following points:

·         The proposed extension rejected at number 41 Raisins had been different to the type of extension currently under consideration and there was another property in the area that already had a similar extension.

·         The applicant had lived in the area for 38 years and had moved to their current house two years ago. Their children were settled into the area and there was a good community spirit.

·         The applicant's architect had sought to ensure that the plans were sympathetic to and complemented the area of special local character.

·         It was stated that the proposals was sensitive to the existing street scene and were subordinate to the host property.

·         None of the applicant's neighbours had raised objections directly to the applicant. Many of the immediate neighbours had expressed surprise that there had been objections to the application.

·         It was proposed that existing bricks from the garage, which was to be demolished, would be reused for the extension to ensure that the appearance of the extension was similar to that of the existing property.

·         The proposals would enhance the appearance of the property and result in it becoming a benchmark for others looking to improve their properties.

·         Loss of light was not an issue as only one property could be affected and the proposed extension would be further in from the applicant's property boundary than the existing garage that was proposed for demolition. The residents of this neighbouring property supported the proposals.

·         Flood risk would not be increased by the proposals. The applicant would be liable for repairs in the event that the culvert on their land was damaged. Discussions had taken place with Thames Water to ensure that the impact of the development was minimised.

·         It was requested that the Committee approve the application.

In response to a Member question, the applicant confirmed that they had access to the culvert and that it did not have a cover.

Officers advised that the area of special local character had been recently designated. The designation of an area as having special local character did not necessarily prevent development, which would need to respect the character of the property and the spacing around the property. The design of the extension proposed was in character with the property and the setbacks from the boundary were in compliance with what was normally required in a conservation area.

The possibility of a site visit was discussed. This would be in order to consider how the view would be affected by the proposals.

Members raised some concerns due to the fact that the property was in an area of special local character. However, on balance, given the separations of existing properties in the area, the extension was not considered to cause sufficient detriment for it to be rejected. It was considered that the proposals were in character with the local area and complied with policy and on that basis, they agreed with the officer recommendation for approval.

Officers advised that a condition could be added to request that material samples be provided in advance of construction taking place in order to help ensure that the appearance of the extension matched the existing dwelling. There could be no guarantee of the condition of existing materials if material from the demolished garage was reused. Adding a condition in relation to providing a materials sample would help to overcome this issue.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was agreed by 8 votes for to 0 votes against, with 1 abstention.

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and subject to an amendment to approval condition number 3 to specify that the applicant must provide material samples and have these approved by the planning authority prior to building work being commenced.