Decision details

23/2545/HD

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrative presentation, recommending that planning permission for the proposal was granted, as outlined in the Officer’s report and response to Members questions confirming the extension was of a similar hight and in line with neighbouring property.  Further, that all works on the unauthorised extension building had whilst the issue of consent is resolved.

Councillor Nick Williams addressed the Committee, as the Ward Councillor advising that he was presenting the comments of Councillor Gardner and residents who were concerned that the applicant had a history of building on the site without consent and there were concerns that it was being converted into an HMO.  The rear of the property, including the flat roof would be clearly visible from the well-used public alleyway and should be refused as the flat roof was against Core Strategy DH1 and the not in keeping with the building skyline.  There were safety concerns as the sense of enclosure that would be created to the public alleyway, which was illuminate by one streetlight.  The distance between the extension and first floor window cill was less than 300 mm, failing on paragraph 191 of the Design Guide.   If granted the finish of the building, extension, garden outbuilding and repairs to the wall should all be London stock brick, not render.

Councillor Williams clarified that the applicant was trying to make a long term unacceptable situation acceptable and the extension should not be considered in isolation.

Councillor Greenwell proposed and Councillor O’Byrne Mulligan seconded the proposal for a site visit in order to assess the cumulative effect.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control clarified that the roof was already constructed and the only aspect that the development that was under consideration by the Committee tonight was the application in relation to the extension.  The Area Planning Manager (West) added that the neighbouring property also had a flat roof extension and this was supported by the SPD (Supplementary Panning Document) and the distance between the first floor window cill was more than 300 mm.

Councillor Greenwell withdrew the proposal for a site visit.

The Area Planning Manager (West) responded to Members questions advising the alleyway was well used and the development sight would be mirroring the opposing wall which would not impact any sense of enclosure.  The external surfaces materials to be used for the of the extension were Conditioned and could be amended to require the facing materials match those of the main dwellinghouse and the adjoining boundary wall. 

With no further questions from Members and with no applicant or representative in attendance and Members indication to agree the proposed amendment to Condition 3, the chair put the Officers recommendation to grant approval, with the proposed amendment to the vote and with -

         4 Members in favour

         0 Members against

         0 Members abstaining

Resolved unanimously -

That retrospective Planning consent be granted for a single storey rear infill extension.

That consent is subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report with amendment to Condition 3 so that it reads as follows:

a)    Prior to the implementation of the approved works full details of the proposed facing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. The proposed facing materials shall match the facing materials of the main dwellinghouse and the adjoining boundary wall.

b)    The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

That the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report and its addendums, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.