Agenda item

Demolition of existing detached store to rear, erection of single storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition  of  existing  detached  store  to  rear,  erection  of  single  storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

17423/APP/2011/57

The  application  site  was  located  on  the  north  side  of  Pavilion Way  and  comprised  a  two storey  semi-detached  property  finished  in  red  brick, with white  render  and white UPVC windows and a wooden door. The property had a detached garage to the rear which was used as a store, an area of hard standing to the front and had been extended to the rear with a single storey extension. A loft conversion involving the formation of a gable end  and  the  construction  of  a  rear  dormer  had  recently  been  undertaken  as  Permitted Development.

The street scene was residential  in character and appearance and  the application site was within the developed area as identified in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension with alterations  to  the  first  floor  side  elevation  of  the  existing  house  and  demolition  of  the existing detached store to the rear. The extension would replace the existing single storey rear extension. It would project 3.6 metres from the original rear wall of the property and have an overall width of 8.4 metres. It would be set back 5.4 metres from the front main wall of the property. It would be constructed with a flat roof to a height of 2.98 metres and be finished in materials to match the existing.  The alterations to the first floor side elevation would comprise the installation of an additional toilet window.

Planning permission was refused on 1 November 2010 (17423/APP/2010/1662) for a two storey side and rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 1 front rooflight and conversion of roof from hip to gable end, including demolition of single storey rear element.

7 neighbours and the Eastcote Residents Association were consulted. A petition signed by 21 persons had been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it was oversized and posed potential environmental issues.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Mr Hyde spoke on behalf of the petitioners; he stated that there had been significant changes to the original application that was submitted.

·        Pictures/plans submitted by the lead petitioner showed the angle of the plot. Mr Hyde stated that the boundary of the fence sloped inwards and not at a right as was suggested in the plans submitted by the applicant.

·        Photographs were shown to explain to members the extent of the inward slope on the neighbouring garden.

·        Further photographs showed the boundary line was one that had existed for many decades and that there was old vegetation.

·        The depth of the building was discussed.

·        Mr Hyde had met with the applicant and agent and said that they had stated whatever design was approved they would alter it with adjustments.

·        The petitioners felt that the roof would be out of character with nearby property.

·        Concerns were raised with storage of refuse.

·        Petitioners stated that the existing garage would be demolished.

The agent was not present.

Councillor Michael White was present and spoke as a Ward Councillor:

·        Councillor White thanked officers for a precise report which covered most of the points which were an issue.

·        He stated that the original planning application was refused.

·        Councillor White felt that the extensions to the building were bigger than what the house should have. As a result the property looked bulky.

·        He stated that according to policy extensions should be kept to scale and form of the original architectural building.

·        That the property could become an eyesore.

·        It was very close to the boundary lines.

·        The potential loss of sunlight on the neighbours was an issue for concern.

Members asked officers to clarify the boundary line measurements. Members felt about deciding on an application where there was uncertainty about the plans presented. Officers explained that the applicants shown a signed certificate to planning officers which showed the boundary line as presented by officers. Members requested legal comment on the plans that were presented. They were advised that planning officers were to advise on whether they believed there were any accuracies in the plans submitted.

Members also commented on other issues for discussions which officers had not mentioned in the report which were brought up at the meeting, these could be options for refusal for the application.

Officers advised that they had the option to go back to the applicant and ask them to check the accuracy of the plans. Officers could also go out and check the precise measurement of the area.

Members asked that this item be deferred and that officers to accurately measure the area. Members also asked officers to consider the other reasons for refusal that were discussed by the Ward Councillor and petitioners.

The recommendation for a deferral pending the accuracy of plans to be checked and top get overshadowing assessment was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred to check accuracy of plans and get overshadowing assessment.