Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref. 40305/APP/2021/363, dated 30 March 2021 (Single storey rear extension with roof light, two storey side extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 2 x front rooflights) to alter fenestration, lower ground floor height and add privacy screens.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That the application be refused.

Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref. 40305/APP/2021/363, dated 30 March 2021 (Single storey rear extension with roof light, two storey side extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 2 x front rooflights) to alter fenestration, lower ground floor height and add privacy screens.

Officers introduced the application noting that it was, in part, retrospective and that a site visit confirmed that the development had not been built in accordance with approved plans. The site was located within the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area.

It was highlighted that, based on officer’s site visit measurements, the raised patio was 1.4m high, approximately 30cm higher than the approved scheme. The raised patio as constructed was deemed to have resulted in an unreasonable loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring occupiers. Further to this it was noted that the ground level of the rear garden at number 35 was lower than the application site, adding to the loss of privacy and overlooking issues. The proposed bamboo screening was deemed to be a discordant feature and would not satisfactorily mitigate the overlooking and loss of outlook issues.

It was noted that officers felt there was no grounds for a refusal reason based on the height of the single storey rear extension, which was approximately 40cm higher than the approved scheme, due to the rear extension not causing a significant loss of outlook or light to adjoining occupiers. It was also highlighted that the single storey extension achieved an appropriate degree of subordination to the two-storey host dwelling. Members attention was drawn to the addendum outlining a disparity in height measurements taken by officers and petitioners however officers confirmed that they were satisfied that the rear extension was indeed subordinate.

Officers highlighted that the pavements to the front of the property were damaged during the vehicle crossover works. The Council’s Highways department had confirmed that the works were legal, however the damaged footway would need to be investigated by the Highways department as this did not come under the authority of the Planning department. The application was recommended for refusal.

A petition had been submitted objecting to the application. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee. Key points of their address included:

·       Their petition had gained 41 signatories from 23 properties of the Eastcote Park Estate;

·       If the applicant had built the development as shown in the original plans then there would not have been an issue;

·       With regard to the patio, petitioners supported the officers remarks highlighting that there were no balustrades to transition to a lower level, just one large platform;

·       The rear extension was stated to dominate outlook from neighbouring occupiers and petitioners did not agree with the officers statements that the height of the extension was acceptable;

·       The frontage of the property was stated to feature an excessively sized driveway and entry from the road;

·       The heritage door had been removed and replaced with a synthetic grey door, not in keeping with the character of the Eastcote Park Estate Conservation Area;

·       The applicant had made inaccurate and misleading heritage statements in their initial submission and had not engaged with neighbours at any point of the process.

The Committee sympathised with petitioners and noted a lack of respect from the applicant in carrying out the works. Members initially sought to clarify if there was any evidence that the damage to the holly tree referenced in the report. Officers confirmed that the damage was caused by the works carried out.

Members queried whether the existing patio to the back of number 35 may have already set a precedent of overlooking into the garden of number 37. Officers confirmed that the patio at number 35 was screened by the conservatory and therefore did not set a precedent of overlooking.

The Committee considered the possibility of adding a refusal reason based on the height of the single storey rear extension with some Members noting that the extension did not appear subordinate to the host dwelling. Officers confirmed that the extension was too tall to be in accordance with policy, however on balance, they did not feel that a refusal reason based on the height of the rear extension would be upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, should an appeal be lodged. The Committee were in agreement that an additional refusal reason on the grounds of height should be added as the design led to an overbearing structure; Members were minded to delegate the wording of such a refusal reason to be agreed by officers in conjunction with the Chairman.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the additional reason for refusal associated with the height of the rear extension, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That authority be delegated to Planning Service Manager, in conjunction with the Chairman,  to word an additional reason for refusal based on the height of the rear extension.