Agenda item

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

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation and changes in the addendum.

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, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection to the proposed development addressed the Committee and referred to slides that were circulated to Members and officers prior to the meeting. A background of the application was provided, and this was the third time the petitioner had addressed the Committee. It was submitted that the proposed development caused irreversible harm to the character of the area, overbearing issues and breached the 45-degree angle. Significant concerns were raised about the application facilitating the use of the property as a future house in multiple occupancy (HMO) or hotel.  It was questioned why the 45-degree breach had been accepted in this application as it was understood to go against guidelines. It was further submitted that the Planning Inspector’s decision had been dismissed by officers and there had been a disregard for the petitioner’s living conditions. It was submitted that the Planning Inspector had raised concerns regarding the extension’s height, bulk and proximity, indicating that it would impact the outlook of the office window creating a sense of enclosure. It was further alleged that the house had hardly been occupied since 2022. The petitioner strongly objected to the application and asked for the planning application to be refused.

The applicant addressed the Committee and strongly objected to the assertion that the property would be used as a hotel or an HMO. The applicant stated that the house was and would continue to be used as a family home, and a history of the application was provided. It was submitted that although many residents objected to the application there were also residents that supported the application. It was submitted that there was still more than enough room to build on the site plot without obstructing views of the canal. Existing privacy and overlooking concerns were alleged in respect of the applicant’s back garden. The applicant stated that the application had been made to accommodate a family unit and it was submitted that the Planning Inspector had indicated that the neighbouring property would be barely impacted by scheme. It was further submitted that the scheme would provide more privacy by removing the existing upstairs side elevation window. The applicant stated that they had compromised in the proposal, and it was submitted that his family was being denied the opportunity to improve their living space.

Councillor Martin Goddard addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioner. The Chairman exercised his discretion in allowing Councillor Goddard to address the Committee in Ward Councillor Jane Palmer’s absence due to personal circumstances and the fact that the property was located on the border of Ickenham and Harefield. It was highlighted that the meeting in October 2023 was adjourned to verify whether the 45-degree angle had been breached. Although it was confirmed that there was a breach, it was submitted that planning officers were now saying that this was an irrelevant consideration. It was submitted that the points raised by the Planning Inspector had been consistently dismissed by officers.  It was further alleged that the petitioner had compiled data to show that the applicant did not live in the property and it was not being used as a family dwelling.

Prior to Member discussions the Head of Development and Build Control clarified a number of points for the Committee relating to character, design, the impact on the conservation area and the Planning Inspector’s decision. It was acknowledged that this was an emotive application for both the petitioner and applicant. The application for the Committee’s consideration was for the householder extension and this was the key consideration. Extracts from the Planning Inspector’s decision notice were read verbatim to the Committee. It was acknowledged that the 45-degree guideline, typically applied for front or rear extensions, was breached by a relatively small margin. However, the Committee was advised that this was just a guideline and emphasised the importance of considering whether the proposal was harmful to residential amenity overall. Members were informed that there was adequate separation between the window and the proposed extension, minimising any detrimental impacts to the neighbouring property. A condition could be added to prevent the change of use to an HMO without planning permission to alleviate some of the concerns raised in this respect.

Members sought clarification on whether windows had been removed and replaced at the neighbouring property. It was confirmed that an obscure window film had been removed from the ground floor office window and staircase window since the previous application. It was explained that a daylight and sun light assessment had not been undertaken as officers were content that the revised scheme was acceptable.

During Member discussion, it was noted that the exact measurement for the 45-degree angle was not included in the report. The Committee was informed that to provide the most accurate measurement, an independent surveyor would need to be instructed and this was not considered proportionate or necessary. Although the 45-degree angle guideline had been breached, the impact was acceptable and a Member and officer site visit was undertaken in order to enable assessment of this.

The Legal Advisor asked the Committee to only consider material planning considerations when making its decision.

The Committee agreed that it would be sensible to include a condition preventing the change of use to an HMO. The petitioner concerns were acknowledged however there was a concern that if this went to a planning appeal and was allowed, then there would be no opportunity to impose conditions.

Due to the concerns raised, Members suggested that the proposed balcony privacy screen be obscure glazed glass with a continuous height of 1.8m to increase privacy for neighbouring properties.

The officers’ recommendation, inclusive of a new condition to prevent the use of an HMO, hotel or Air BnB, amendment to condition 6 (balcony privacy screen details) to ensure the obscure glass screen was 1.8m high for its full length, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation subject to a new condition to prevent the use of an HMO, hotel or air BnB, and an amendment to Condition 6 (balcony privacy screen details). The condition wording being subject to approval by the Chair.