Agenda item

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description) 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description)

Councillor Roy Chamdal had expressed a non-pecuniary interest in the application therefore left the room and did not participate in the debate or voting for this item.

Officers introduced the application noting that the site lay within conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, which restricted permitted development rights for small HMOs. Members heard that the design complied with Council policy, being subordinate and well-scaled, and similar extensions existed nearby. A daylight and sunlight report confirmed no significant impact on neighbouring habitable rooms, particularly at No. 7, whose windows faced the proposed development. Planning officers supported the application as it aligned with design and amenity policies, and it was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following key points:

·         Residents at number 7 had expressed concerns that the initial plans resembled an HMO-style property, which would not be in keeping with the street’s character.

·         They noted that the applicant was a property developer and believed the design was squeezed between neighbouring homes.

·         The planning report was criticised for focusing solely on number 2 The Meads, which was not a fair or representative comparison due to its unique location and spacious surroundings.

·         It was highlighted that only one of eight properties had double-storey extensions on both sides, making number 2 an outlier.

·         The proposed application site, was located at the bottom of the close with neighbours on both sides, including number 7, which faced it directly at a 90° angle.

·         Concerns were raised about the impact on light and shadowing, with reported losses of 10% in the office and 7% in the bedroom at number 7.

·         The proposal was said to disregard Council policy requiring detached houses to be set back at least one metre.

·         Number 4 was cited as a better example of considerate planning, being set three metres back and fitting the street’s character.

·         Doubts were expressed about the credibility of the daylight and sunlight report, citing inconsistent data and lack of professional accreditation.

·         A request was made for the Council to consider safeguards against future HMO or subletting developments and to review the proposal for partial approval due to its impact on number 7.

·         Visual representations were used to argue that the proposed development would appear as an oversized block squeezed into a small space, disrupting the street scene.

Members sought further clarification from the petitioners regarding shadowing and the impact of the proposal on daylight and sunlight at their property. The petitioner acknowledged that shadowing already occurred due to the existing structure and argued that adding a double-storey extension would worsen it, potentially covering most of their house. While they appreciated the neighbour’s intent to improve their property, they felt the proposed development was unfair and inconsistent with the typical single two-storey extensions seen on the street. The petitioners emphasised their unique situation, with their house directly facing the neighbour’s wall, and feared the extension would significantly degrade their living experience.

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

·         Petitioners at number 7 had misled others by claiming the planning application was for an HMO, when it was actually for a family home.

·         The house was intended for the use of the applicant’s own family, which included his four sons and a spouse, therefore five bedrooms were needed.

·         It was explained that the downstairs room had mistakenly been labelled as a bedroom by the architect, but it was actually an office, with a gym on the left side.

·         The applicant stated that the neighbour’s shadowing photo was misleading and argued that the actual distance between the properties was nine metres, which would not significantly affect light or privacy.

·         He emphasised that the proposed extension was a single-storey addition and complied with planning regulations, including no windows facing the neighbour.

·         The applicant claimed that the neighbour had labelled him a property developer which was untrue.

·         He noted that officers had no objections to the proposal and that the application adhered to all planning rules and regulations.

·         The applicant felt it would have been better if the neighbour had approached him directly to discuss concerns.

Ward Councillor Ahmad-Wallana was also present and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Councillor Ahmad-Wallana objected to the planning application, citing its negative impact on the neighbouring property at number 7. He argued that the proposed two-storey side extension would significantly reduce natural light to side-facing windows and garden areas, causing substantial overshadowing and harming the living conditions of the occupants at number 7. It was claimed that the development would breach guidance on daylight and sunlight and would create an oppressive environment. The scale and positioning of the extension were described as overbearing, reducing the sense of openness and disrupting the visual character of the street. The proposal was also considered inconsistent with local planning policies, and Councillor Ahmad-Wallana requested that the Committee refuse the application.

Officers acknowledged the petitioner's photo submissions but noted that they lacked professional accuracy compared to the validated planning documents. It was emphasised that the daylight and sunlight assessment had been conducted by a qualified consultancy, adhering to BRE guidance, and had found no significant impact on neighbouring properties. The proposed extensions were deemed domestically scaled and compliant with design policy DM HD1, with limited visual intrusion. Although the proximity to property number 7 was noted, it was clarified that existing overshadowing and vegetation already affected light levels. The report was considered robust, and there were no grounds to refuse the application on the grounds of harm to residential amenity. Additionally, officers clarified that the site was within an Article 4 area, hence any conversion to an HMO would require planning consent and public consultation.

In response to Members’ questions, it was explained that, since the property was located in an Article 4 area, the usual rule allowing up to six bedrooms without planning permission for an HMO did not apply. This meant that even if the property had fewer than six bedrooms, it still could not be converted into an HMO without submitting a planning application.

Councillors raised concerns regarding the daylight and sunlight impact of the proposed development on neighbouring property number 7 and asked how many hours of direct sunlight the affected rooms received during winter and how the extension would alter that. Officers responded that the assessment followed BRE guidance using percentage-based metrics rather than direct sunlight hours and confirmed the development did not breach the 27% threshold for significant impact.

Members sought clarification on amendments to the daylight and sunlight report, questioning whether they were limited to typos or included changes to figures. It was explained that the amendments addressed drafting errors, such as references to unbuilt extensions, and confirmed the report was updated for transparency without affecting its conclusions.

A further question was raised about the relevance of the petitioner’s photos, to which officers responded that while the photos illustrated existing overshadowing, the proposed extension would be slightly lower and only 3 metres closer, resulting in minimal additional harm. Officers also noted that the affected windows were part of an existing extension, which already experienced overshadowing.

Finally, the Committee asked whether scaffolding restrictions should be considered due to the proximity of the neighbouring property. Officers clarified that construction must remain within the applicant’s boundary and that such restrictions were not typically imposed for household applications.

Councillors acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns about the potential use of the property as an HMO and appreciated that this issue had been clarified by officers, noting that any future conversion would require Planning approval. They noted that the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and unlikely to be successfully challenged on appeal.

Members raised no further concerns or questions. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.