Agenda item

Single storey extension to storage shed (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Single storey extension to storage shed (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report. Members were informed that the extension failed to harmonise with the architectural composition of the existing outbuilding. It was also considered to be detrimental to the character of the Area of Special Local Character and to the amenity of the adjoining occupier at number 15 (by reason of overshadowing, loss of outlook and loss of light).

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application advising the Committee that his mother resided in a neighbouring house. Members were informed that the storage building was easily visible from his mother’s living room and had been built without planning permission or building control. Previously, there had been a small low coal shed in situ, but this had been replaced with a much bigger and higher building which ran for 8m along the boundary. The Committee was advised that the two buildings now in place were separated by a small gap of approximately 40 cm giving the impression of one very long building. Moreover, the extension had been constructed of breeze blocks; this was not in keeping with the red brick house. The petitioner stated that bushes and trees had been removed and conifers cut back; as a result, the view from his mother’s house was of a long high wall along the boundary. A Member of the Gatehill (Northwood) Residents Association also addressed the Committee advising that the Association also objected to this retrospective application and requesting that it be refused.

The applicant / agent spoke in response to the petitioner. Councillors were informed that the brick façade over the storage shed had collapsed as a large branch of the pine tree had fallen on it. This had caused the roof of the shed to collapse. Furthermore, there had been two large unsightly diesel tanks behind the storage space which were rusty and potentially dangerous. Members were informed that it had been essential to do the works to improve the visual amenity and to make the environment safe.

The applicant stated that the new extension was relatively small and had been built to the rear of the pre-existing storage shed; the height was the same as previously and there was approximately 8m of open space between the edge of the extension wall and the neighbour’s property. The Committee was advised that the materials used for the front façade were bricks to match the existing. The side wall of the extension was breeze blocks which had been rendered; this was in keeping with materials used in the area and consistent with the various policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan. Members were informed that there was no loss of visual amenity or adverse impact on the Special Local Character as the extension could not be seen from any public vantage point. There was a thick screen of trees and shrubs blocking any public views of the extension. Moreover, the applicant commented that the extension had no windows and was screened by a row of pine trees and shrubs along the boundary with the neighbour at number 15. It was claimed that the tall pine trees had a greater impact on light than the extension and that the restored front elevation enhanced visual amenity. The applicant made reference to sections 117, 118 and paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 in support of the works carried out.

In conclusion, it was claimed that the reasons for refusal were not justified.

Ward Councillor Morgan addressed the Committee in objection to the application commenting that officers’ photos did not fully demonstrate the actual impact of the extension on number 15. Members were informed that the extension was excessively large and had been built right up to the boundary wall necessitating the removal of shrubs and low branches.

The Committee commented that the extension was clearly problematic and unacceptable. It was agreed that non-standard refusal reason 2 be amended by the Head of Planning to remove reference to ‘overshadowing’ and ‘loss of light’. Planning enforcement would be requested to review the site in its entirety.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the amendment of non-standard reason for refusal 2.

RESOLVED That:

1.    the application be refused;

2.    that authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend reason for refusal 2 to remove reference to ‘overshadowing’ and ‘loss of light’; and

3.    planning enforcement be requested to review the site in its entirety.