Agenda item

Erection of a two storey side extension, front porch, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer extension.

Recommendations: Approval

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

Erection of a two-storey side extension, front porch, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer extension

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the proposed development addressed the Committee and raised concerns about the potential use of the property. It was submitted that a range of people had lived in the property over a period of time and it was being advertised on rent a room. The recommendation that the property was not used as a house of multiple occupancy was welcomed. Church Lane was a community family area and changing the property use would change the nature of the property and community. It was submitted that based on the layout of the property and number of bathrooms there was no intention to use the property as a family home and questions were raised on how the HMO stipulation would be policed. The petitioner welcomed a new family into the community but was concerned about the possibility of the property being used as an HMO in the future.

The applicant for the application addressed the Committee and outlined the proposal. A background and context was provided for the reasons for the application and it was confirmed that the proposed extension was to accommodate the family needs. The applicant largely agreed with the officers’ report and welcomed any conditions. The applicant welcomed the condition in relation to the prevention of an HMO. The proposal had been designed by a professional architect and there was offsite parking available for the house. The applicant was shocked by the allegations of using the property for renting purposes, however it was confirmed that it was not necessary to address those allegations as they would not be considered by the Committee.

In response to Member questions regarding the change of use of the property, the applicant confirmed that there were no plans to convert the property to an HMO and it would be used as a family dwelling. The applicant confirmed that an inspection visit was undertaken two hours after receiving notice.

Councillor Tony Burles, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge made written submissions to the Committee supporting the points raised by the petitioner. It was noted that the property had been operating as an HMO which had impacted the nature and quietness of the road. Approving the application would make the situation worse for residents as there were already parking issues on the road. A site visit was requested. 

The Head of Development Management and Building Control drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum that provided details from a site inspection undertaken by a Planning Manager. It was noted that the site inspection did not substantiate allegations that the property is in use as a House in Multiple Occupation. However, the matter remains under investigation by the Council’s Planning and Housing Departments.  The Committee was urged to consider the application before it and not any potential change of use of the property. The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that whether the property was an HMO was background information and any breaches would be considered by the Council enforcement team.

During Member discussions it was noted that a construction management plan condition was not recommended due to the size and scale of the development. An informative could be added in respect of working hours to limit any noise impact.

Members were pleased to see the petitioner and applicant working together to address the issues raised and for the applicant to accept any conditions put forward.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of an informative regarding working hours, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation subject to the informative regarding working hours and the additional information in the addendum.