Agenda item

Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension with Juliette balcony, involving demoltion of existing extension and conversio of roof space to habitable use, to include two rear dormers, two front dormers, one roof light and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with alterations to fenestration, hard standing to front, associated refuse and recycling store, including rebuilding of existing garage.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension with Juliette balcony involving demolition of existing extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use, to include two rear dormers, two front dormers, seven roof lights and conversion of roof from hip to gabble end with alterations to fenestration, hard standing to front, associated refuse and recycling store, including rebuilding of existing garage.

This item was considered alongside Item 8.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which included an additional reason for refusal as the proposed extension, by reason of its proximity to the boundary, would result in an unacceptable reduction in the light received by the adjacent bedroom window at the neighbouring property, 16 St Edmunds Avenue, in addition to which the extension would appear as an overbearing and visually intrusive feature which would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook.

A petition was received in objection to the application, and the petitioners submitted a written representation which stated that the proposed development was too large and should be scaled down to reflect the size and design of other more modestly extended bungalows on the street. The Committee also heard that the position and size of the windows on the flank wall facing No. 16 were inaccurate on the plans and would have any impact on the daylight reaching this room. The petitioner wrote that the layout and density of the proposed extension will be overly dominant, and will significantly overlook No 20, while the driveway was built with an excessively large area of hardstanding.

The agent for the application submitted a written representation which noted that the application would not impact the existing baseline of the street scene, nor the wider landscape, and the proposal should be considered in keeping with the character of the local area. Members heard that the application took into consideration the design of the range of architectural styles along St Edmunds Avenue and would deliver a redeveloped property that was similar in scale when compared to the immediate residential properties. The Committee was informed that there would be no harm on the neighbouring amenities of No 16 and No 20 St Edmunds Avenue, and soft landscaping would be introduced to the front of the property.

Councillor Ian Edwards, Ward Councillor for Eastcote and East Ruislip, submitted a written representation to the Council which noted that St Edmunds Avenue was a quiet, residential road that consisted of detached chalet bungalow properties, commonly with modest roof extensions. Councillor Edwards stated that neither proposal under consideration at the site comply with the Council’s planning policies that require extensions and roof extensions to be subordinate to the original property and in keeping with the neighbourhood. The Committee were informed that the ground floor plans submitted were inaccurate in relation to the size and position of windows of No 16, and this would have a detrimental impact on the daylight reaching that room. Furthermore, the conversion to hardstanding in the front garden is harmful to the visual amenity of the street and detrimental to the environment.

The Legal Officer noted that short videos had been received from both the petitioners and the applicant, and these were shared with the Committee prior to the meeting.

The Head of Planning, Regeneration and Transportation noted that the additional reason for refusal outlined in the addendum addressed the concerns of the petitioners and Ward Councillor, and informed the Committee that the plans do include soft landscaping and drainage to the front of the property.

The Committee agreed that the applications were out of character with the street scene and neither complied with the Council’s planning policies. Members agreed that the additional reason for refusal that took into account the loss of light to No 16 was very welcome, and noted that while there were modest extensions elsewhere in the neighbourhood, these proposals could not be construed as modest, and would impact on neighbouring properties.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.