Agenda item

Single storey front and side extension, two storey rear extension, alterations to existing sides, conversion of loft space for habitable use to include 2 rear rooflights and 4 skylights, alterations to front elevation to include new front porch, new pitched roof to single storey front and pitched roof to existing bay windows at first floor.

Recommendation : Approval

19 GROVE ROAD, NORTHWOOD

Single storey front and side extension, two storey rear extension, alterations to existing sides, conversion of loft space for habitable use to include 2 rear rooflights and 4 skylights, alterations to front elevation to include new front porch, new pitched roof to single storey front and pitched roof to existing bay windows at first floor.

27846/APP/2010/145

At the beginning of the item, the Planning Officer introduced the report and then the Legal Officer confirmed there was a valid petition on this item.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The proposed development will have significant impact on adjoining properties.
• The proposed design is over-dominant.
• If the application is approved it will set an undesirable precedent in the local area.
• The proposed development incorporates a large roof structure which will amount to a 3 storey extension.
• The height and roof design of the application are contrary to the SPD
• The maximum depth of the proposal should be reduced in depth by 3.6 metres.
• The flat top mannard roof design is alien to properties in the surrounding area.
• The proposed design will cause significant overshadowing to neighbouring properties, especially to number 17 due to the height of the design proposal.
• The proposed patio design will cause overlooking and lead to a loss of privacy for these properties.

Points raised by the agent:

• The proposed design does take account of the objections raised.
• The application is for a four-bedroom home which is typical of the area and has not been much enlarged since 1930s.
• The proposal will bring the property up to modern standards.
• The proposed design is relatively modest compared to other (local) projects and the applicant had not anticipated it to be as problematic.
• The properties at 14, 21 and 23 have substantial side and rear extensions.
• The proposed depth of the design has been reduced substantially and should this application not be approved it would be setting a precedent.
• Disappointment that the objections had not been withdrawn.
• The architect and client have co-operated with the Council.
• The majority of the work is to the rear of the property and therefore there is reduced impact on the street scene.
• There are substantial gaps between the adjoining houses at 17 and 21 Grove Road.
• The rear of the (application) building is north facing which lessens the impact of overshadowing.
• There is minimal overlooking to the rear of the property.
• The proposed design is not excessive and complies with the guidance.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting in support of the petitioners objecting and raised the following points:

• When viewing the rear of the property, the Councillor enquired whether it was usual to meet with only the applicant (and not the neighbours).
• In relation to the privacy concerns raised by neighbours, the raised patio will be reduced in height.
• The proposed design will harmonise with the area but the issue is the extent and depth of the proposed extension.
• The proposed depth of the extension will be greater than 6 metres which is considerably larger than other properties. This will double the size of the extension of the house.
• The proposed development will amount to an overdevelopment which will limit neighbours right to light and reduce their privacy.
• The proposed development (if approved) will lead to massive overshadowing.

Members asked officers to comment on the assertion that the proposed development was larger than others in the area that had previously been approved bearing in mind the agent had said the proposal was similar to the properties at 17 and 21 Grove Road. In response, Officers confirmed that the central section of the proposal was larger and surrounding properties were smaller in size.

Members also asked about whether it was usual for officers to meet with both the applicant and their neighbours, as regards the height of the proposed patio and overlooking and the degree of overshadowing directly caused by the proposal. In response, Officers advised that it was not usual practice to meet with neighbours and they would only do this if they were unable to view the rear of the property. Officers confirmed that the raised patio would enable a degree of overlooking along the entire fence line but this in itself was not a reason for refusal. Officers also confirmed that they considered the loss of light caused by overshadowing to be acceptable and that this reason alone would not hold up on appeal.

Having listened to both points of view, Members agreed that the proposal was over-dominant and would adversely impact upon neighbouring properties.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of size, scale and bulk and that it is out of character with the area. On being put to the vote refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be Refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development by reason of its size, scale, bulk and design incorporating a large crown roof, would be out of character with the existing and adjoining properties and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19  of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions.