Agenda item

Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include three rear and two side rooflights and porch to front (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include three rear and two side rooflights and porch to the front (Retrospective).

This item was considered alongside Item 7.

Officers introduced the application which sought retrospective planning permission for a two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include rooflights and a porch to the front.

Members heard that two previous applications were approved in 2016, but there were differences between the approved plans and the building work that had now taken place. A first-floor element had been added without planning permission, and this was considered in-fill beneath the roof. There was no change to the appearance of the frontage of the house.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, an informed the Committee that he was speaking on behalf of the local residents. The petitioner noted that this was the third occasion he had spoken at a Committee regarding this site, and residents were concerned over the size and bulk of the first application. Members heard that it was the opinion of the local residents that the intended use of the property is as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), and that this application was a precursor to a further application for a Change of Use. The Committee were informed that neighbours have experienced significant disruption from the building works taking place at the site, including inconsiderate construction, noise pollution at anti-social hours, and parking on neighbouring driveways. The petitioner noted that the application was retrospective, as the current building works were build outside the plans and unapproved, and local residents were concerned about further retrospective applications and a change of use to use the property as an HMO.

The applicant's representative addressed the Committee, and noted that the first-floor element was built as in-fill as the overhang of the roof was not suitable. The roof was built as permitted, but structural works were required as the column supporting the roof on the ground floor was not sufficient. The applicant's representative apologised to Members for the work that took place without the consent of the Committee.

Responding to Councillors' questioning, the applicant's representative confirmed that the first-floor element was necessary, as the roof was too heavy a load for the column to support. Members heard that when the works were carried out, it was decided that the column would not be enough to support the roof and a further floor had to be build for safety reasons, but the applicant's representative was not in attendance or informed of this until it had already been built.

Councillor Raymond Graham, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, was in attendance and spoke in support of the petitioners, noting that 29 people had signed the petition and there was a strong sense of feeling in the area about the application. The Committee heard that the building that took place without permission was intentional, and that it has caused problems for the local residents, with the police being called several times to deal with nuisance matters. Furthermore, the site has room for five vehicles to park, and neighbours have reported two metered domestic supplies were added to the property. Councillor Graham confirmed that he wished for the application to be rejected.

The Chairman confirmed that nuisance issues were not planning considerations, and drew the Committee's attention to the officer's report, which noted that "applications which are for development which was note authorised need to be assessed as to whether the unauthorised development was intentional. If so, then this is a material planning consideration. In this case, officers have no indication that this was an intentional breach of planning control".

The Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that officers concluded there were no planning considerations to support a refusal, and it was very difficult to prove that this was an intentionally retrospective application. The Legal Officer confirmed that there was evidence to support both claims that this was intentionally and unintentionally retrospective, and as such, it would be difficult to hold up on appeal.

The Committee noted that they understood the local residents' concerns, and heard from Officers that should the application be rejected by the Committee and appealed, it would be the responsibility of the Planning Appeals Inspector to impose conditions. Therefore, a successful appeal might result in some conditions that were suggested by the Council not being enforced.

Members agreed that the Council was in a difficult position, and it was important to ensure that the conditions that were proposed in the officer's report were enforced if possible. Councillors noted that on balance, it appeared that the retrospective application could have been deliberate, but it was not possible to prove this. As such, the Committee agreed that it was constrained by the planning rules and policies, and on this occasion, the application was acceptable in planning terms, and caused little harm or impact to neighbouring amenity. Members agreed that it was vital to ensure condition 5 was enforced, to prevent the dwelling being divided to form additional dwelling units or used in multiple occupancy without further permission from the Committee.

As such, Councillors reluctantly agreed to propose and second the officer's recommendation. Upon being put to a vote, six Members voted in favour of the recommendation, and one Councillor abstained.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.