Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (DEV-004-2014/15).

The Committee considered an application for a single storey rear extension, garage conversion and dormer window to the front elevation at 69 Baldwins Hill in Loughton.

The Assistant Director of Governance (Development Control) reported that this application had been considered by Area Plans Sub-Committee South on 11 June 2014 with an Officer recommendation to grant approval. The Officer recommendation was lost and a minority reference to this Committee was made. However, there was no formal proposal to refuse the application made at that time and therefore the application was before the Committee with the original Officer recommendation.

The Assistant Director stated that the proposed development was for a single storey rear extension which would be 3.5metres deep, 10.5 metres wide and 3.2 metres high. The application also included a front porch and new front dormer windows which would alter the façade of the dwelling. It was also proposed to change the garage into a habitable living space. The Committee noted the representations received from 71 Baldwins Hill, The Hills Amenity Society and Loughton Town Council; all of whom had objected to the application.

The Assistant Director reported that the main issues to consider were the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours and the design of the proposal with regards to the existing building and its setting. After considering Neighbour Amenity issues and Design issues, Officers had concluded that the rear extension was of a modest size, the development would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring properties and the design respected the existing building. Therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Assistant Director commented upon the appeal decision from 1986. It did concern a similar sized extension and Officers were surprised that the appeal was dismissed, but the Planning Inspector had considered the potential loss of light to the neighbours. Planning Law had changed since then and the Applicant could now build a similar sized extension as in 1986.

The Committee heard from an Objector before proceeding to debate the application.

The Assistant Director assured that Committee that the Planning Officer had visited the site to consider the loss of light issue, and it was believed that the potential harm was not significant enough to justify refusal. Extensions of this size were normally acceptable. Planning rules had been relaxed since the appeal decision quoted in the report from 1986; it was acknowledged that more information regarding that decision should have been included in the report. It was confirmed that the Applicant could build a 4 metre single storey extension under their permitted development rights; the application was for an extension 3.5 metres long which would be 2 metres beyond the houses on either side.

Some members of the Committee had sympathy for the views expressed by the Objector and proposed a motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that:

·         the development, by virtue of its incongruous appearance would have a deleterious effect on the street scene;

• the host dwelling would have insufficient private amenity space in its rear garden contrary to Policy DBE8; and
• The proposed rear extension was overbearing and unneighbourly and would have an adverse effect on the amenities of the adjoining properties,especially given the lack of light to the rear and gardens of these houses, because of the preserved trees adjoining.

However, the proposal was lost by a narrow majority.

The Committee further considered the merits of the case and noted that of the four neighbouring residents consulted regarding the application, only one had objected. The Committee felt that it was very difficult to object to the proposed rear extension as the light predominantly came through the trees at the back of the gardens. It was also noted that, although the two neighbouring houses were very similar, they were not identical. The Assistant Director highlighted that the application site was not in the Baldwins Hill Conservation Area.

Resolved:

(1)        That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

            (a)        the development herby permitted be begun not later than the           expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice; and

            (b)        all construction/demolition works and ancillary operations, including            vehicle movement on site which were audible at the boundary of noise             sensitive premises, shall only take place between the hours of 07.30 and        18.30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 13.00 hours on Saturday, and at no             time during Sunday and Public/Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in         writing by the Local Planning Authority.