Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission Ref: 17412/APP/2019/2186 dated 16/10/2019 (single storey side extensions, single storey rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include, raising of ridge of roof, 6 side dormers, 5 side rooflights and extension and conversion of front and rear of roof from hip to gable end with new gable end windows) to allow for additional windows and to enable the roofspace to be used for additional living accommodation

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)      That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead, to reword the existing reason for refusal to make reference to the ASLC; add a second reason for refusal on the basis of overlooking; and check the accuracy of the plans and add an informative in relation to this.

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission Ref: 17412/APP/2019/2186 dated 16/10/2019 (single storey side extensions, single storey rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include raising of ridge of roof, 6 side dormers, 5 side rooflights and extension and conversion of front and rear of roof from hip to gable end with new gable end windows) to allow for additional windows and to enable the roofspace to be used for additional living accommodation.

Officers introduced the application informing Members that the size and design would not be altered but changes to fenestration were proposed which were considered unacceptable. The application was recommended for refusal. Members were requested to agree the rewording of the existing reason for refusal to include reference to “Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character and the surrounding area.” 

A written representation on behalf of the petitioners was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       Neighbours wished to retain the character of the area and reduce the impact on residents. The officer’s report recommending refusal was welcomed but outstanding concerns were raised in relation to neighbour impact, transparency, discrepancies, privacy, landscaping, owner obligations and multiple applications;

·       The report stated that the proposed changes would not impact negatively on neighbours. This was disputed as it was felt that the increase in glazing had already resulted in significant loss of privacy and this would be exacerbated by the current application;

·       Residents had been assured that their objections had been reviewed but had seen no proof of this. A copy of the officer’s complete report which considered fully all neighbour representations and comments both for this and previous applications was requested to ensure transparency of decision-making;

·       There was a discrepancy in the number of rooflights described and the number on the drawings both for this and a previous application. The number of rooflights already constructed illegally on site exceeded both sets of numbers. The Planning Committee was requested to reconcile what had been approved with what had been constructed without consent;

·       The main concern related to privacy. The Council had requested that all windows facing 39 and 47 be obscured and non-opening below 1.8m from floor level. The owner had ignored this and had installed clear glass fully openable windows. The current application requested that obscured glass restriction be limited to first floor only with glazing to the 2^nd floor being clear. Petitioners requested that the existing planning consent be maintained and no relaxation entertained. High level clear unobscured glass to the north elevation at 2^nd floor level would compromise the privacy of neighbours at numbers 41, 45 and 45A, therefore mandatory obscured glass on all higher level elevations was requested;

·       Planning officers were requested to impose a landscaping obligation on the owner to replace the planting destroyed during construction and reinforce the planting to boundaries to reinstate the privacy previously enjoyed;

·       Owner obligations regarding working hours, noise, site fires etc were regularly being breached. Site inspections were requested to control these repeated breaches of planning consents; and

·       Multiple applications and the Council’s approval of ambiguous applications had encouraged the owner to pursue further retrospective applications.

A short written submission from Ward Councillor Ray Graham was read out requesting that the Committee endorse the refusal recommendation in the officer’s report for the reasons given.

The Head of Planning addressed Members noting that enforcement matters relating to construction without consent did not pertain to this Committee and would be addressed separately. Residents’ concerns regarding overlooking were noted, but excessive fenestration was considered to be the main reason for a refusal recommendation.

Members cited a similar example of excessive fenestration in Thornhill Road, Ickenham. It was believed that this was already being investigated by enforcement officers. The legal advisor highlighted the requirement to focus on the current application only and not consider other unrelated matters.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the proposed second floor loft area which would have extensive glazing both to the front and the rear plus additional rooflights. It was felt that this would lead to overlooking to neighbours’ properties. At the request of Members, it was agreed that the matter of overlooking be added to the reasons for refusal. It was considered that, should it go to appeal, this decision could be defended given the extent of the glazing proposed.

Members noted that there appeared to be some inconsistencies in the plans as set out in the pack. An informative was requested in relation to this.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the agreed amendments to reasons for refusal and an informative in relation to discrepancies in the plans.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead, to reword the existing reason for refusal to include reference to the ASLC; add a second reason for refusal on the basis of overlooking; and check the accuracy of the plans and add an informative in relation to this.