Agenda item

1 Raynton Close, Hayes - 8096/APP/2020/3154

Two storey side extension and single storey side/rear extension

 

Recommendations: Approval

Minutes:

Two storey side extension and single storey side/rear extension.

 

For the duration of this item, Councillor Brightman remained muted and her camera was turned off.

 

Officers introduced the application and noted that a previous application for a similar development was refused in February 2020 and an appeal against that decision was subsequently dismissed. Where the previous application had been refused due to the width of the two-storey side extension which exceeded the maximum width stated in the Development Management Policy, the current application had been revised to the extent by which it fully complied with Council requirements and had therefore overcome its previous reason for refusal. The application was recommended for approval.

 

A petition in objection to the application had been received and written representations from the lead petitioner were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

 

  • Petitioners stated that the proposed development would negatively impact the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area;
  • That the plans suggested a possible future House in Multiple Occupation (HMO as the bedrooms had all been planned with en-suite bathrooms and there was no primary bathroom. Furthermore, the architect had supposedly suggested that the downstairs TV room could be adapted into a bedroom further inferring a potential change of use;
  • Raynton Close was a cul-de-sac with existing parking stresses, the proposed development would put further strain on parking, particularly at school times;
  • The proposal, by virtue of its size, scale, bulk, and proximity, would be detrimental to the amenities of Raynton Close by reason of overdominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion, loss of light and loss of outlook.

 

Members were informed that condition six of the officer’s report stated that the development shall not be sub-divided to form additional dwelling units and would therefore not become a HMO without further express permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

The Committee questioned the existing vehicle access to the property and the impact that two dropped kerbs would have on the parking situation in the street. Members noted that in single dwellings, double parking was deemed acceptable and that the owners would be required to apply to the Highway Authority for an additional vehicle crossover. The Committee were informed that the development would have a driveway with enough space to tandem park two vehicles using an existing dropped kerb, a further dropped kerb at the front of the property would not be compliant with Council policies as it would be deemed too close to the junction with Raynton Drive.

 

The materials and aesthetic of the development were raised with regard to ensuring the property remained in keeping with other developments on the street. Officers informed Members that this property was outside of any conservation area and, as such, the materials required for roof tiles and windows would be at the developer’s discretion; however, there was a condition within the report recommending that the materials used match those of existing dwelling.

 

Members noted that the orientation of the property was such that any issues of overshadowing would fall north which minimised the impact on neighbours. With regard to the garden area, the Committee queried the amount of private amenity space that would remain if the development were to go ahead, officers noted that a previously demolished garage in the back garden had opened up some private amenity space and that together, the front and back garden areas amounted to over 70 square metres which complied with amenity space requirements.

 

Members noted that the roof of the property had a cranked pitch, yet the plans did not reflect this. Officers noted that an additional condition may be required to show the design of the cranked pitch on a revised elevation plan. The Committee were minded to incorporate this into their decision.

 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the additional condition.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)    That the application be approved; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft an additional condition in relation to the requirement of new plans to show the cranked pitch in the property’s roof.

Supporting documents: