Agenda item

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

Petitioners were in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

1. The case was complex, involving many unfortunate factors and a wrongly drawn plan by the applicant's architect.
2. The Council was accused of making an oversight and not applying local planning recommendations to set back the side wall of the rear double storey extension by 1m.
3. Their orientation to the extension was unique and critically positioned, but the Council had not applied the local recommendation.
4. The affected neighbours felt that the Council had not paid enough attention to the critical details of the planning application.
5. Residents had trusted the Council but believed they had been unfairly treated in this case.
6. The petitioners requested the Councillors reach a “no decision” on this application at this stage.
7. The planning officers' detailed report indicated that Councillors would be minded to approve the second application.
8. Residents hoped that, rather than referring to DRE guidelines and sunlight/daylight calculations, Councillors would consider the simpler build guidelines and the Council's one-metre side boundary distance policy.
9. It was pointed out that previous appeals in the road in 2019 and 2020 had met the Council's requirements to be set 1m away from shared side boundaries at first floor level and created minimal overshadowing to neighbours.
10. The neighbours argued that other referenced two-storey side extensions were not relevant to the current application.
11. It was believed that a no decision would support the nearest neighbour and retain the approval granted earlier in 2024.
12. Petitioners highlighted the need to bring important circumstances in front of the elected Planning Committee. They felt it was virtually impossible for planning permission previously granted, whether by clerical miscalculation or planning policy oversight, to be revoked.
13. It was hoped that an identical planning decision would not be made within the suburbs of the Borough of Hillingdon until changes to current planning guidance were merited.

In response to questions from Members, petitioners confirmed that a ‘no decision’ was requested at this time.

The applicant and agent for the application were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The agent emphasised the pressure his clients had been under for the past six months.
• He reported that neighbours had been aware of the proposed plans throughout the planning application stage, but complaints had only started when the first floor of the rear extension was being constructed.
• The development was constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slight inaccuracy in the relationship with the neighbouring properties.
• The agent accepted responsibility for the inaccuracy but had expected the Planning Officer to pick up any relevant discrepancy during the site visit.
• He questioned the validity of the petition, noting that over 20 signatures had come from just four households.
• It was argued that the development did not affect the street scene and that his clients were prejudiced by the slightly inaccurate relationship.
• The drawings had been corrected, a daylight and sunlight assessment completed, and everything now complied with the guidelines and requirements of the planning department.
• It was felt that a decision could and should be made at the meeting.
• The applicant had invited neighbours to view the plans, but one neighbour had not attended the meeting.
• He had faced objections after the second floor was being constructed, despite having shown the plans to neighbours.
• It had been necessary to rush the construction for financial reasons and the applicants had invested all their life savings into the house.
• The client was not in a position to amend the house and felt they were being unfairly dragged through the process.
• The client hoped for a favourable decision to put the matter to rest.

A written statement from Ward Councillors Richard Mills and Heena Makwana had been received and was read out to the Committee. The Ward Councillors noted that both the petitioner and the applicant had engaged with them on the matter and had been advised to work closely with officers to ensure all processes were followed correctly. Members of the Committee were respectfully requested to carefully consider all the information presented to them by officers, the petitioner and the applicant to enable them to reach a fair and informed decision.

In response to requests for clarification from Councillors, it was confirmed that it was the applicant’s responsibility to submit a factually correct application with accurate plans. It was acknowledged that there had been a slight departure from the from the 1m rule which tried to ensure space between properties in respect of street character. Members heard that the development had been constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slightly inaccurate relationship with the neighbouring properties. The daylight and sunlight assessment had passed all the requirements. It was felt that the development retained a level of openness, with a 0.6 metre distance to the front and up to 1.1 metres at the upper floor level. The back reduced to 0.4 metres, slightly clipping the 45° test but overall, it was felt that the development was acceptable.

In response to further questions from Members, It was clarified that building control records were confidential and that applicants could use third-party registered building control approvers, meaning the Council might not have received the reports.

Concerns were raised about planning enforcement. It was revealed that an enforcement investigation had been opened due to concerns about the footprint during the building stage. A site inspection had been carried out, and a warning letter sent. Planning officers had also visited the site to ensure the accuracy of the plans.

It was noted that a discrepancy had been discovered during the building process. An enforcement officer had visited the site. It had been noted that alterations from the approved plans were minimal; a stop notice had not been issued but a warning letter had been sent out.

Members noted that the officers' recommendation had been based on the merits of the scheme, not its retrospective nature.

No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 6 votes in support and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.