Agenda item

Erection of a first-floor extension over existing building to create a two-storey dwelling

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Erection of a first-floor extension over existing building to create a two storey dwelling.

Officers introduced the application, noting its relationship to neighbouring properties, compliance with design policies, and adherence to standards relating to character, amenity, daylight/sunlight, and parking. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         It was noted that the report had stated no significant harm would be caused to the character of the street, yet 130 neighbours - all from Great Central Avenue and adjoining roads - had signed a petition disagreeing with this, a figure higher than the incorrectly reported 101 signatures;

·         The petitioner acknowledged variation in house types on Great Central Avenue but noted that the proposal would create a six?bedroom property with potential for seven, which was not reflective of the typical two? or three?bedroom pattern on the road;

·         It was argued that comparisons to No. 18 were misleading because that property had only three bedrooms, unlike the scale of the proposal;

·         Concerns were raised that increasing bedroom numbers would likely lead to more occupants and more cars, worsening existing parking pressures in a permit?restricted street;

·         Although the report stated BRE standards would be met, the petitioner questioned whether “sufficient” daylight would be acceptable for gardens and homes, especially as daylight assessments had not been carried out on frequently used non?habitable areas such as hallways, staircases, and bathrooms;

·         It was highlighted that some windows, including those providing the only natural light to key internal areas, appeared not to have been properly assessed, leading to concerns about reduced light and increased risks when using stairs.

·         Existing drainage issues were referenced, including a recent blockage affecting multiple properties, suggesting that a six? or seven?bedroom dwelling could exacerbate the problem.

·         It was pointed out that No. 31 already had lawful permission for a roof alteration that would provide additional space without harming neighbours, unlike the current proposal;

·         It was argued that the report did not reflect the strength or scale of local concern, noting that 130 households had consistently sought updates for eight months;

·         It was stated that the proposal benefited only one household while negatively impacting many others and therefore the Committee was urged to refuse the application.

The applicant was also in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following key points:

·         The applicant clarified that the proposed extension was not intended for HMO use, resale, subdivision, or any commercial purpose;

·         It was explained that the extension was required solely to meet the needs of the applicant’s family, including two young children and a daughter with complex medical needs who was unable to climb stairs and required her own bedroom;

·         It was noted that additional family support frequently came from relatives abroad, and the existing layout with one small office and a single bathroom was inadequate for their circumstances;

·         It was stated that the applicant worked remotely as a senior software consultant and required a dedicated office space, which the current property could not provide;

·         The applicant outlined that the six?bedroom layout would accommodate a bedroom for his daughter, a playroom for the twins, an office, a guest room, and a room for the applicant and his wife;

·         In response to concerns about the character of the street, the applicant referenced multiple nearby properties with four to five bedrooms or more and noted that several neighbouring homes had already undergone extensions;

·         The applicant referred to a professional daylight assessment which had concluded that BRE guidelines were met and that neighbouring properties had only non?habitable windows facing the site;

·         It was stated that the dwelling would remain a single?family home, with no significant increase in household water usage or drainage impact, despite past drainage issues in the area;

·         It was confirmed that the household owned only two cars and had no capacity or intention to add a third, so parking demand would not increase;

·         Construction management would, according to the applicant, be handled carefully, with deliveries scheduled outside peak hours and works limited to 8:30am–5:00pm;

·         It was noted that all relevant planning policies had been complied with and that the extension was necessary to support the applicant’s daughter’s medical needs, the twins’ future need for separate rooms, and long?term family stability;

·         The applicant concluded by requesting approval of the application, noting that they may not have the financial means to pursue such works later in life.

Councillors sought reassurance that the proposal was for a family home rather than an HMO and asked whether vehicle numbers would remain unchanged. The applicant confirmed that the property already had space for three cars but only two were owned, with no capacity or intention to add a third vehicle.

Members asked which application the applicant intended to pursue, noting that a certificate of lawful development for the roof space had already been granted the previous July. The applicant explained that the lawful development option had originally been explored, but the resulting rooms would have been too small, leading them to pursue a full planning application to provide adequate space for their family’s needs.

Ward Councillor Richard Mills was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·         The Councillor confirmed that he was speaking in support of neighbouring residents who had opposed the application, referencing a petition with over 100 signatures, written objections, and his own Ward Members objections;

·         It was emphasised that residents did not oppose change in principle but believed the proposal to be disproportionate, harmful to local character, and dismissive of cumulative impacts required by planning policy;

·         Councillor Mills noted that although the report relied heavily on the street’s variation, such variation did not justify overdevelopment;

·         The proposal was described as turning a modest bungalow into a six? to seven?bedroom, two?storey dwelling, representing a major increase in scale, mass, and intensity on the plot;

·         It was argued that nearby two?storey homes were not comparable, as some had been entirely rebuilt or approved under different policies;

·         Councillor Mills highlighted that the increased ridge height—approximately eight metres—would sit directly beside neighbouring gardens and windows, causing an increased sense of enclosure and reduced outlook;

·         It was stated that compliance with minimum technical standards did not automatically equate to planning acceptability and that planning decisions should consider what was reasonable and fair to neighbouring residents;

·         Concerns were raised that the increase from two to six bedrooms provided no additional off?street parking in an area already affected by parking pressure and controls;

·         It was noted that increased visits from extended family, deliveries, and day?to?day comings and goings were foreseeable with a dwelling of this scale, regardless of its formal use class;

·         Reference to 18 Great Central Avenue as a comparable property was questioned because it was reportedly subject to ongoing planning enforcement;

·         It was concluded that, although the application might meet certain technical thresholds, the judgement on scale, intensity, character, and neighbour impact indicated that the proposal went too far;

·         The Committee was requested to refuse the application or, at minimum, defer it for meaningful reductions in scale to better reflect the character of Great Central Avenue and the expectations of neighbouring residents.

Members enquired whether planning approval would be required, should the applicant later sell the property or seek to change its use to an HMO. It was confirmed that this was correct; Article 4 was in place and any such change of use would need new planning permission.

Councillors sought clarity as to why the significant increase in size and bulk was considered appropriate and compatible with the established street scene. Officers noted that planning policy supported the creation of larger family homes and that, despite the scale of six bedrooms, the proposal remained a family dwelling. It was explained that the height and form would align with neighbouring two?storey properties, that the eaves height would be lower than that of No. 33, and that the ridgeline would reflect the character of the area. Officers found the proposal acceptable in design terms.

Members requested the percentage reduction in daylight and sunlight to neighbouring gardens and side windows. It was explained that BRE guidance required at least half of a garden to receive two hours of sunlight on 21 March, and that No. 29 currently received 68% sunlight, which would fall only to 67%, representing a reduction of less than 1%. Regarding No. 33, officers confirmed that no reduction would occur, and therefore no basis for refusal existed on garden daylight grounds.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was clarified that side?facing windows serving non?habitable rooms were not afforded protection under policy, and since BRE and local standards applied only to habitable rooms, those requirements had been met. Officers therefore concluded that there were no grounds for refusal relating to daylight impacts on non?habitable side windows.

Members noted that the proposed development fell within policy constraints and would be unlikely to be overturned at appeal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.