Agenda item

Single storey rear extension and part first floor rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

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

Single storey rear extension and part first floor rear extension

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and submitted that the application was not a true reflection of what had already been built and what was intended. On 4 August 2021, planning consent for the application was granted on the premises that the Council would be able to gain control of the property. It was alleged that since then, the applicant had deviated from the two previously approved planning applications, acted without permission and breached planning rules. The petitioner referred the Committee to photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting and explained the significance of each photo. Scant regard had been taken of the conditions in the planning consent regarding the use of materials and there had been no adherence to the regulated hours of work. It was explained that the extension to 60 Swan Road had been built entirely on the curtilage of its own land and the original dwelling was much smaller in size. The proposed extension would overscale a neighbouring property and there were also no residents effected by the development at 60 Swan Road due to its location. There was continuous intimidation by the applicant towards the petition organiser especially whilst collecting signatures for the petition. The Committee was asked to make a choice of what was right and what is easy.

It was noted that there was an enforcement case open on the site and additional issues would be communicated to the team. However, the Committee was advised to focus on planning matters and not matters falling outside of the scope of planning, such as building regulation related issues. 

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and submitted that the works were in construction further to previously approved planning permission. The proposal had been designed taking into account Hillingdon Council residential policies.  The extension had no overbearing issues affecting adjoining and neighbouring properties. The flat roof helped to mitigate any overshadowing and there were no breaches in terms of windows and overlooking. The proposal complied with parking policies and the application had been assessed by planning officers. The application would not detract from the character of the area, the works would be a proportionate addition to the dwelling and there would be no harm caused to neighbouring properties. Overall, it was submitted that the proposed development to the property would result in good internal living conditions.  It was reiterated that similar extensions had already been approved and built on the road, and the proposal would be in keeping with the surrounding area.

Councillor Jan Sweeting, Ward Councillor for West Drayton addressed the Committee by way of written submissions. Councillor Sweeting fully supported the residents' petition and submitted that the applications had been dealt with in an aggressive manner by the applicant.  There had been no regard to rules and the Committee was referred to photographs that had been circulated prior to the meeting.  The applicant had not adhered to party wall agreements and there had been no reference to the inadequacies of the parking to the property.  It was submitted that the parking spaces mentioned were only possible by vehicles mounting the pavement to access the second space, and also crossing over a designated residents parking space. The Committee was asked to address the points raised prior to making a decision.

The Chairman reiterated the need to only have regard to planning considerations and the information before the Committee at the meeting.

In response to Member questions regarding the boundary dispute, the Legal Advisor advised the Committee that the matter had to be managed privately. It was not a matter for the local authority as it was not a material planning consideration.

In terms of daylight impact on neighbouring properties, it was confirmed that that sun came from the front of the house over to the back, and there was a natural overshadowing of the properties themselves.

The Committee noted that it could only consider the information before it and as such officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed.

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