Decision details

Description:

This application sought approval for the erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension. It also involved the installation of a pitch roof to the side of the property and the creation of a covered seating area.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager reported the following:

Amended plans had been received showing changes to the roof of the single storey side extension and also the conservatory of the neighbouring dwelling.  Consequently, condition 3 should be amended to:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings: L2506/LP rev A; 01; 02; 03; 05 rev A and 08 received 03.11.2017; 08 rev A received 03.01.2018 and 01 rev A and 05 rev B received 09.01.2018.

One late letter of objection had been received raising the following points:

·         Page two of their original letter of objection is not displayed on the website.  (Officer note:  This has now been rectified).

·         The rear gardens are west facing, and not north facing as stated in the report (Officer note: Para 7.10, 4^th line on page 27 should read “west“ not “north”.

·         The proposal does not comply with the SPD.  (Officer note: The SPD is dealt with in the Planning Committee report.  The required 1m ‘set-in’ from the side boundary is for 2 storey side extensions, not rear extensions).

Two letters of representation had been received on behalf of the applicant raising the following point:

• Some photographs should be considered showing that the loss of light will not be significant.
• Reference is made to light guidance by the London Borough of Merton

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking procedures, Ian Brimage spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:

• Loss of sunlight and daylight
• Errors in the report (Officer note: this has been corrected)
• Contrary to SPD

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking procedures, Cllr Nick Gething spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:

• Impact on neighbour
• Errors in the report (Officer note: this has been corrected)

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Concern about impact on neighbour
• More information is required to assess the impact on the neighbour
• Queries over the application of the proposal against the Council’s SPD

Decision:

The application was deferred to enable further information to be provided to assess the impact on the neighbouring property.