Agenda item

Deepening of an extension to existing basement area to create habitable space, single storey rear extension and installation of rooflight to rear.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.

Officers presented the report and provided an overview of the application.  The application related to the deepening of an existing basement, single storey rear extension, installation of a rooflight and realignment of the internal floor levels. Officers explained that this item referred to an appeal against non-determination. Officers highlighted the addendum which pointed out that the Planning Inspectorate would be the decision maker on the case and the Committee were considering the officer recommendation to refuse the scheme and that would form part of the Council's appeal statement. Anomalies in the plans were pointed out; the floor plan showed that on the first floor the back bedroom had a window facing out onto the garden, whereas the elevational drawings indicated that there was no window - only a skylight. Officers drew attention to a Certificate of Lawful Development approved on the site and mentioned in the addendum and explained that there had been a dismissed appeal on the site previously. Officers confirmed that the application was recommended for refusal for two reasons; the rear elevation failed to harmonise with the proportions of the existing building and there was insufficient head height in the back bedroom which provided poor outlook.

The lead petitioner spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the buildings in question were built in 1835 and were some of the oldest buildings in North Uxbridge. The petitioner's main concern related to the effect of the proposed development on the property's foundations and believed it would affect not only the structural stability of 8 Bawtree Road, but also that of his own adjacent property. He commented that such works could cause flooding and created dust and noise which impacted on neighbours. Moreover, the petitioner felt that further ground water evaluation was required to determine the effect of heavy rain. He stated that the proposed basement extension would create a dam which would trap water and make his own cellar even damper. The petitioner voiced further concerns regarding a lack of natural light in the proposed extended basement and felt that the proposed section of glazed panels below the existing bay window would be insufficient and would not illuminate the large room. He also questioned the ventilation and fire safety aspects of the new development.

The applicant spoke in response to the concerns raised. He stated that the application sought to address all the issues brought to light in his previous application. He referred to the Certificate of Lawful Development already granted on the property. The applicant believed that the development would be of benefit to the Borough and addressed some of the Homes for Life conditions placed on new properties. The design was intended to ensure that elderly relatives would be able to access the property and have full use of bathrooms etc. The applicant stated that he had a mechanical ventilation heat recovery unit prepared for the site which would address some of the ventilation issues. With regards to the rear bedroom, he claimed that the floor levels could be tweaked to address the issues raised. The petitioner felt that the issues raised and reasons given for refusal could be addressed with two another conditions and proposed that the application could then be recommended for approval. He stated that the Flood Water Management Officer had no concerns and the structural side of things would be managed by Building Control and a party wall agreement.

Members sought clarification regarding the structural engineer's comments on this application.  The applicant confirmed that his structural engineer had worked on many basement extensions and bunkers for politicians, therefore understood the issues involved. The Chairman commented that the Committee could only consider material planning considerations and could not take into account structural matters relating to the party wall agreement as this was controlled by other legislation; namely the party wall act.

Officers reminded Members that a planning application on this property had already gone to appeal in which the Inspector dealt with the same basement but with a different extension. The Inspector had stated categorically that the drainage issues raised could be dealt with by a planning condition but had concerns regarding the rear extension proposed. The Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that the party wall process had already commenced which meant there were surveyors involved and both parties were getting professional advice. Therefore the main consideration for the Committee was the rear extension. Moreover, the applicant's request would effectively involve re-drawing the plans and therefore Members were advised to only consider the plans before them. With regards to the Certificate of Lawful Development, it was confirmed that the Certificate only covered work which could be carried out within permitted development; in this case the proposed rear extension was too large to be considered a single storey rear extension therefore did not fall within the remit of PD.

Members sought clarification regarding the statement that the Council would not support basement developments which extended the full width or length of the site. The Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that the quotation related to a policy in the emerging Part II Local Plan which was not being used for development control purposes by the Council yet.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.