Agenda item

5 ST MARY AVENUE, Wallington, SM6 7JH - APPLICATION NO. D2015/71537/HHA

Erection of a single storey rear extension and formation of a front entrance porch.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a single storey rear extension and formation of a front entrance porch.

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Melican.

 

In response to Member questions officers confirmed that Highways had been consulted on the opening of the porch onto the shared access and had raised no concerns as it was felt there was sufficient space to manoeuvre cars. Officers also confirmed that there were no similar porches on the road; however some houses did have front extensions, and this property was set back from some neighbouring properties.

 

Christine Lindsay, an objector, and Councillor Marian Radford, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

 

The principal issues raised by Ms Lindsay were:-

·         Building works started in March 2015 and were taking place six days a week.

·         An inspector attended the premises and advised the applicant that works would need to stop and a planning application would need to be submitted.

·         Paragraph 5.4 of the report was incorrect as from number 5 St Mary Avenue properties were on the same property line.

·         The porch was sited at the narrowest point on the shared access path making it difficult to access via car.

·         Paragraph 5.5 of the report did not consider the visual impact of the porch as the windows make the extension seem larger.

·         The extension was oversized and out of keeping with the surrounding area.

·         The rear extension left no space for rendering the rear elevation as it was sited on the boundary wall.

·         There were variations between the plans for the rear extension and what had been built to-date.

·         There had been a number of errors by the Planning Department in relation to this application.

·         Suggested that Members visit the site before making a decision.

 

In response to Member questions Ms Lindsay stated that a neighbour had noted that the applicant struggled to manoeuvre their car down the shared passageway.

 

The principal issues raised by Councillor Radford were:-

·         The application for the front porch was retrospective. 

·         Have visited the site and assessed the height and bulk of the building.

·         The extension is set only 0.5 metres away from the boundary to the neighbouring property.

·         Significant impact on neighbour with loss of light.

·         There had been a number of amendments to the plans.

·         Letter from Mr Loveday regarding the front porch was incorrect as the door opens from the side.

·         In the rear garden there was already a large timber building and so only around 5 metres of garden space would be left if the conservatory was built.

·         Suggest the decision is deferred until a site visit has been completed.

 

In response to Member questions it was clarified the height of the conservatory would be 3.3 metres at the highest point. Officers informed the Committee that 5 metres2 was the required amount of garden space for a two bedroom property, with 1 metres2 required for each bedroom thereafter, under the London Plan and so there would be sufficient garden space.

 

Officers confirmed that breeze blocks had been removed on the wall that had been built to-date, and that the plan was to having glazing above the current breeze blocks height.

 

The Committee discussed the need to establish demonstrable harm if they were to refuse permission. It was felt that the front porch was not in keeping with the area as it went beyond the building line of the road. Furthermore the lantern above the conservatory was felt to increase the bulk and impact of the extension.

 

Officers suggested that discussions could be had with the applicant regarding the rear extension and as to whether the lantern could be removed from the plans. The Chair suggested that if the application was deferred that the Committee visit the site to view the completed front extension and assess the impact of the planned rear extension.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (0)

 

A poll vote to defer the application was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To defer (9)   Councillors Samantha Bourne, Richard Clifton, Margaret Court, Vincent Galligan, Amy Haldane, Patrick McManus, Hamish Pollock, Graham Whitham and Hanna Zuchowska

 

Resolved: To defer consideration of application no. D2015/71537/HHA for further negotiation and consideration.

 

Supporting documents: