Agenda item

Two storey rear extension and porch to front

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendment of condition 7 to protect the amenity of residents and trees.

Two storey rear extension and porch to front

Officers introduced the application which sought planning permission for a two storey rear extension and porch to the front of a two storey, detached dwelling located to the south of Holm Grove. Members were informed that the dwelling was located within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The proposed rear extension would project for a depth of four metres over both floors and was deemed to be in line with Council policy. The proposed front porch would be subordinate to the main dwelling and was also considered to be acceptable. The first floor windows had been amended to be obscurely glazed. It was confirmed that the impact on neighbours had been taken into consideration and was considered acceptable; there would be a distance of 15.5m between the extension and the rear of no. 24 Holm Grove and a distance of 7.5m to the side boundary shared with no. 30 Holm Grove. There would be no windows to habitable rooms on the first floor as there would only be an obscured bathroom window.  It was reported that the distance to Monterey Close was just under 14m but was still considered to be acceptable as there were a number of large trees which provided a screen. The application was recommended for approval.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. The petitioner referred to paragraph 6.12 of the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) which stated that no direct overlooking was permitted and that there should be a distance of at least 21m between facing habitable room windows. The petitioner was of the opinion that, for this application, the proposed distance of 15.5m between properties did not comply with Council policy. The petitioner expressed concern that, if approved, this development would set a precedent for the future and would have a detrimental effect on the Area of Special Local Character. Noise was another area of concern cited by the petitioner, as was the increased sense of dominance that the proposed extension could create. The petitioner requested that, should the application be approved, measures be taken to ensure that the fence at no. 31 (which was in a state of disrepair) be replaced with a fence 2.8m high across the width of the garden to provide some privacy. A further request was for overlooking windows to be of obscure glass with no openers below 1.8m.

Members requested further clarification regarding the 21m distance cited by the petitioner and were advised that said distance applied to facing habitable rooms only. For non-habitable rooms the minimum distance was 15.5m. It was confirmed that the bathroom window and all ground floor windows in the extension would be conditioned to be glazed with permanently obscured glass and non-opening below 1.8m (condition 5).

The Committee requested further clarification regarding the significance of the Area of Special Local Character status. It was confirmed that this related to the design of developments which had to be in keeping with the character of the area; unlike a Conservation Area, it did not indicate that developments were largely prohibited. Members questioned whether it would be possible to condition the fence height at 2.8m but were informed that the standard height for fences in the Borough was 2m; anything higher could have a detrimental impact on the area's overall appearance.  

Councillors requested clarification as to the positioning of the aforementioned trees; it was confirmed that said trees were located on the highway - not in the boundary of an individual property. Members expressed concern regarding the proposed first floor extension and the potential for a future restructure which could convert the property into a four-bedroom house. It was suggested that a condition be added to ensure that this would not be a possibility.

The Committee wanted to know whether the extension was likely to damage the roots of trees in the vicinity and whether an extensive tree survey should be commissioned. Councillors were referred to the tree protection condition RES8 on page 12 of the report which offered reassurance on this point. Members were advised that the method statement would cover all essential tree protection measures, including ground works, and all work undertaken would be approved by the Council's tree officers.

The proposal was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendment of condition 7 to protect the amenity of residents and trees.