Proposal:

Proposed single storey rear extension

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions

Jerry Bell introduced the report for the proposed single storey rear extension. He reminded the Committee that the application should be considered on this basis, rather than on the objections regarding the alleged use of the premises as a House in Multiple Occupancy.(HMO)

Eleanor Downton (Planning Officer) presented the application highlighting the site location, including images of the rear of the site, the floor plans and the existing and proposed elevations. It was noted that it would cover the full length or the property, be 4 metres deep, 2.7 metres high with a flat roof with materials matching that of the existing building.

The proposal was considered to be a well designed and subordinate addition, which responds well to the scale of development within the terrace and wider area.  Consultation had been carried out. A number of issues had been raised mainly  relating to use of the property as a HMO and the associated impacts of this. It was emphasised that no change of use was proposed to convert the house into a HMO from a single household residential use. Therefore, any impacts should be similar to that for a residential use.  In addition, due its modest scale and the position of the new windows, the development would not unduly impact upon the residential amenities enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers.

Officers recommend the proposed development be granted planning permission, subject to conditions.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Katrina MacLachlan, Councillor Peter Golds and Councillor Andrew Wood addressed the Committee in objection. They highlighted the following points:

•         They drew attention to evidence regarding use of the property as a HMO and the concerns about this.

•         The growth of HMOs in the local area and the impacts on residents and the local area in terms of pressure on services, amenity impacts, noise disturbance, increase in ASB, lack of affordable housing.

•         Property ownership issues.

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Committee’s questions:

The Committee asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers. In response the following points were discussed:

•         The length of the rear garden which was around 4 ½ meters.

•         The complaints concerning the use of the property as a HMO. It was noted that following the introduction of  Borough wide Planning guidance, that conversions to HMOs now required planning permission and that this property did not have a HMO license.  Applications for such conversations would be considered in the normal way on its merits.

•         The Committee  must therefore only consider the application before them and must disregard the issues about a HMO. Property ownership issues were also not a relevant planning matter

•         In response to questions, the objectors clarified their concerns about the subdivision of the property to create rooms, similar to neighbouring properties.  Concerns were also expressed about the harmful impact of this and the gradual loss of family housing.

•         Regarding the impacts on overlooking, it was explained that the location of the windows would match the pattern on the existing first floor.  No windows were proposed on the side elevations. Given this, and the modest scale of the development, the proposal raised no issues in privacy and overlooking terms.

•         The Committee could add a condition requiring that that the roof area can only be used for maintenance and repairs purposes. The Committee moved and supported an additional condition supporting this as set out in the resolutions below.

Councillor Kahar Chowdhury proposed and Councillor John Pierce seconded the additional condition set out in the resolution 3 below and this was agreed.

On a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That planning permission is GRANTED at  24 Lockesfield Place, London, E14 3AH for the Proposed single storey rear extension(PA/20/02107) 

2.       Subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report:

3.       The additional condition limiting the use of the roof space for maintenance and repair purposes only.