Agenda item

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report noting that the proposals were fully compliant with Council policies and it was deemed that there was limited impact on adjoining occupiers. It was noted that concerns had been raised regarding use of the property as an HMO, attention was drawn to the addendum and it was highlighted that the Council’s Licensing team had been made aware of this in April 2020 and were to investigate the matter; the property was not listed as a licensed HMO, however officer’s had included a condition within the recommendations to ensure that the property could not be used as an HMO in future without further express permission from the Local Planning Authority. It was also noted that the property was currently undergoing work to its roof in the form of a hip to gable conversion and a loft extension, this was allowed under permitted development. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee, key points raised included:

• Concerns had been raised that the property was currently in use as an unlicensed HMO. Whilst noting that the use of the property was currently listed as a family home, the petitioner welcomed the condition that, should the item be approved, the property would be prevented from becoming an HMO.

• Concerns were raised as to the extent to which the proposed extension would restrict the amount of light entering the adjoining property and lead to a loss of outlook and amenity. The petitioner made reference to the Council’s 45-degree policy.

• It was suggested that a site visit take place for Members to see the impact that the new loft extension would have in conjunction with the proposed development, as the images shown in the officers presentation had not featured the loft extension, construction of which had only recently finished.

Ward Councillor for West Drayton, Councillor Jan Sweeting, had submitted a written statement that was read out in support of the petitioners. Key points included:

• It was highlighted that one of the plans was showing a side elevation with a 6-metre extension, this was concerning as the proposals were for a 3.6 metre extension.

• It would assist the Committee’s decision if they also had plans of the adjoining 54 Swan Road as these would show how the proposed extension would impact on the property.

• Further concerns were raised as to the use of the property as an HMO; it was highlighted that the Covid-19 pandemic had hindered officers ability to properly investigate the property during 2020. The applicant had stated the property was a family home, when it was felt it was likely being used as an unlicensed HMO.

Officers highlighted that, should the application not be approved, then the property could be used as an HMO for up to 6 people; if it were approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations, condition 6 would dictate that the property could not be used as an HMO. Officers also clarified that the proposed dimensions of the extension were compliant with Council policies, including the 45-degree policy which only applied to 2-storey extensions. Regarding the claim from Councillor Sweeting that a 6-metre extension was shown in certain plans, it was clarified that they referred to the original proposals, not the proposed development Members were currently considering.

Although the Committee were supportive of the condition to prevent the property from becoming an HMO, Members were minded to carry out a site visit to fully establish the impact on the adjoining occupier at 54 Swan Road. It was proposed that the item be deferred to allow for a site visit, this was seconded, and when put to a vote agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to allow for a site visit.