Agenda item

Alterations of garage roof, erection of a three storey side extension with balcony and balustrade, alterations to fenestration, and demolition of chimney

Recommendation: Approval

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

Alterations of garage roof, erection of a three storey side extension with balcony and balustrade, alterations to fenestration and demolition of chimney.

Officers introduced the application noting that the application site lay in a semi-rural location within the Coppermill Lock Conservation Area. Planning permission had previously been refused due to concerns about the impact on neighbours at number 27 Jacks Lane. The current scheme had reduced the scale of the proposed development significantly and the application was now recommended for approval.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·         The proposed development would create a 5-bed house which could potentially be used as an HMO in the future;

·         The previous application had been refused due to its impact on a first-floor habitable room window at number 27 and the harm this would cause to neighbouring living conditions;

·         A subsequent appeal had been refused for reasons including its failure to comply with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two;

·         At appeal the Planning Inspector had identified additional harm to neighbours which had not been addressed in the current application;

·         The proposed reduction in scale would not be clear of the 45-degree line hence would not resolve the impact on outlook from the first floor bedroom window at number 27 Jacks Lane;

·         The glazed office window had not been replaced but had been temporarily covered with a privacy film which had now been peeled off;

·         The height, bulk and proximity to the boundary of the proposed development remained unchanged and would still cause significant harm to neighbours;

·         Additional reasons for refusal relating to loss of outlook from the office window and the overbearing impact on the outdoor amenity space were cited.  

The applicant was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant and his partner had six children between them and wanted to create a family home;

·         At present there was an 8m gap between numbers 27 and 28 which was larger than the gaps between other properties in Jacks Lane – once the extension had been completed, the gap would still measure nearly 5m;

·         In January, the Planning Committee had generally been in support of the application – the only concerns raised had been in respect of loss of outlook;

·         The applicant had worked closely with planning officers to reduce the proposed development and ensure it would comply with planning policy;

·         The current proposal would have a minimal impact on neighbours – the applicant did not wish to cause any disruption;

·         The applicant was disappointed with the reaction of neighbours. He wanted to create a family home and had no intention of using it as an HMO in the future;

·         Number 27 was a beautiful property with a large frontage and outlook over the canal. The extension at number 28 would not impact on number 27 as the house was recessed. No house on Jacks Lane had complete privacy;

·         The occupants at number 27 had installed a security camera which looked directly into the applicant’s back garden;

·         The applicant had behaved with dignity, gone through the planning process and felt he had arrived at a plan which would suit everyone.

Ward Councillor Martin Goddard was in attendance and spoke in support of petitioners. He noted that an earlier application had been refused in January and, at appeal, the Inspector had identified two other matters of concern. The current application needed to be considered in isolation and all possible reasons for refusal taken into account. It appeared that concerns regarding the 45 degree angle had not been addressed and officers had not attended the site to check the measurements.

In response to their requests for clarification, Members were advised that the reduction in scale would be clear of the 45-degree angle therefore it was considered that the proposed development would not impact on the outlook at number 27. There was no specific evidence to suggest that the 45-degree angle was incorrect. The houses in Jacks Lane were unusual and the 45-degree angle would not automatically apply therefore measurements had not been taken in this case.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that the application could be conditioned to ensure it would not be used as an HMO in the future.

It was confirmed that the balcony would be at a similar level to the existing one.

Members were concerned that the proposed development would not respect the privacy of neighbours hence a site visit was proposed. The proposal to conduct a site visit to clarify the matter of the 45-degree angle was moved, seconded and unanimously approved.

The matter would be considered again at a future Planning Committee. Should petitioners wish to speak again, a new petition would need to be submitted.

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