Issue - decisions

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 informed the Committee that:

3 late letters of representation had been received from the neighbouring property of 25 St Hilda’s Avenue. Issues raised which were not included in the officer’s report:-

a)    New sunlight assessment is flawed and falsely assumes north-west facing gardens when they are actually west/west-north-west facing. (Officer note: this assessment has not been referred to by officers as referred to in para 7.12)

b)    New sun path assessment shows conservatory overshadowed on 21^st March at 3PM

c)    No 25 is situated to the north & received direct sunlight between 12:30 -1PM from the end of January

(Officer note: in response to b and c, the light issue is assessed in the officer’s report.  In addition, a sun path assessment plan has been received from the applicant showing the impact on the sunlight on the neighbouring property. It shows the proposed extension does not cause a significant loss of light.  This assessment together with a 3D drawing of the 45? vertical assessment were set to the objector at no. 25)

d)    States conservatories should not be treated the same as other extensions and they do not appear on the list of habitable rooms in the SPD (Officer note: this is addressed in the officer’s report under para 7.6 on page 63).

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Ian Brimage spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• The 45° vertical arc should be taken from the rear of the original property, not the rear of the conservatory which has been added.
• Loss of light
• The conservatory at No. 25 did not require planning permission

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Nick Gething spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Many issues of concern were raised by Nick Gething at the 10 January 2018 Planning Committee meeting
• Loss of light
• Will have a disproportionate impact on the neighbour

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• The conservatory is not a habitable room
• Paragraph 7.6 of the officer’s report adequately describes how the proposal has been assessed.

Decision:

The Application was approved as per the recommendation in the Officer’s report.

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.