Agenda item

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey, 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space (incorporating a rear dormer and front/side roof lights), parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front. Renewal of expired planning consent under reference 24351/APP/2016/1304.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey, 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space (incorporating a rear dormer and front/side roof lights), parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front. Renewal of expired planning consent under reference 24351/APP/2016/1304.

Officers introduced the application, noting the addendum, which amended a condition to improve air quality.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The petitioner did not want to prevent development of the plot.
• Neighbourhood stability was sought, rather than an HMO.
• Overdevelopment would lead to irreversible consequences of loss of privacy, natural light and scenic viewpoint.
• Many other neighbours would suffer as well.
• A key issue was constructing what was, in all but name, a six-bedroom three-story building which would stretch the building line beyond reasonable limits. This in itself would not impact number 43 so devastatingly if the proposed new front building line were able to be brought forward to compensate.
• The back of the petitioner’s property and patio would be overshadowed by the proposed structure.
• Why has the front build line of the existing structure not been able to be retained?
• It was uncertain as to where the 45-degree visibility angle from number 43 has been measured from.
• There was already variation in the building line of the petitioner’s side of the road.
• The report mentions possible negative impact on other neighbour’s properties, but not the petitioner’s property.
• The comments from West Drayton Conservation Area panel stated this application “will take light from the rear of number 43 and will have an overbearing effect on the properties on both sides”.
• The planning officer’s comments section stated that there was no kitchen extractor shown on the proposed plans when in fact an extract system was shown on some drawings as blowing directly onto the petitioner’s patio.
• The height of 8.41 meters would tower far above the petitioner’s property which was 6.4 meters at maximum.

The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• This application had been previously approved via a pre-planning application, with lots of contact with planning officers.
• No changes had been made.
• This was the same application.

A condition was added to require corrected plans to be submitted prior to commencement, given an error in the drawings pertaining to a staircase.

A condition was added to remove permitted development rights for change of use to a small HMO.

Members questioned and officers clarified that while the application was identical to the previous one, the policy framework had been updated, and considering physical context and the impact on neighbouring properties, any substantial changes could appear unreasonable and might not withstand an appeal. Officers acknowledged the limitations in changing the plans due to the expiration of the determination and the necessity to assess the application based on the current development plan.

When this application was approved previously, the Council did impose a condition restricting the height of the building. That was taken to appeal and the Council lost so that condition was found to be not necessary or reasonable.

On the petitioner’s point about the extractor fan outlet, officers noted that this was not something that would usually be taking into account as no planning permission is needed for an extractor fan outlet. Furthermore, the planning inspector may find control of this unreasonable.

In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, offices clarified that at the moment in the area, there were a lot of two storey properties that already had either rear first floor windows or rear dormer windows and those windows provided views into the gardens of neighbours as well as the garden of the host dwelling. For that reason, putting in a dormer at the back would likely give the same view as those existing windows in the area so there would be no uplift in privacy loss or overlooking. A condition had been added to restrict the insertion of any other first floor side windows which would cause privacy issues. In addition to that, it was ensured that the side windows which were being proposed were going to be obscure glazed.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

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