Agenda item

Single storey rear extension

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report noting that determination of the application had previously been deferred for the purpose of conducting a site visit; this site visit took place on 13 July. Members attention was drawn to the addendum sheet where correspondence had been received from the lead petitioner objecting to the application where they had reiterated concerns around loss of light and that the cumulative impact of the proposed extension and the loft conversion should be taken into account and that similar extensions in equivalent properties were not comparable as they didn’t have an outrigger. The objector had also commented on the requirement for a shadowing diagram, it was confirmed that, although Members did discuss the issue of shadowing diagrams at the previous meeting, no formal request was made for the production of such a diagram. It was noted that a shadowing diagram was not a requirement for householder applications and if one had been produced, it would not have added any new information for Members given that they had visited the site in person. Officers highlighted that a potential reason for refusal based on overshadowing would be unlikely to be sustained at appeal. The application was recommended for approval.

Ward Councillor for West Drayton, Councillor Jan Sweeting, had submitted a written statement objecting to the application which was read out ahead of the Committee’s debate. Key points included:

• It was highlighted that the proposed development, together with the loft extension, would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent dwelling at 54 Swan Road. There would be a reduction in natural light to the main rear reception room and the extension would create an enclosed courtyard effect to the outdoor amenity space.

• It was noted that the issue of overshadowing was discussed at length by the Committee at their previous meeting and the lack of a shadowing diagram was highlighted as it was believed that this would have clarified the issue.

• 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.

• It was requested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that conditions be put in place restricting the property from being used as an HMO.

The Chairman reiterated to the Committee that the permitted loft extension development was not part of the application and therefore should not be considered. It was also highlighted that within the officer’s recommendations was a condition stipulating that the property could not be used as an HMO without further express permission from the Local Planning Authority.

The Committee noted that the site visit had aided Members in garnering clarity regarding the application. It was highlighted that the condition relating to restricting the property’s use as an HMO was very important to alleviate a primary concern of the Ward Councillors and objectors. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendations.