Agenda item

This application proposes the erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed).

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main committee report.

PROPOSAL

Erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main committee report.

Brooke Storey Vowles (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for the erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension; a single storey rear extension; hip-to-gable roof extension including rear dormer window and rooflights; gabled roof over side extension; and a front porch; partial demolition of garage; and conversion of the building into 2 self-contained flats (Part Retrospective, Part Proposed).

Attention was drawn to the supplementary report, detailing two additional comments received since the publication of the committee report, which did not specifically raise an objection but were queries, and as such, the number of objections remained the same. The recommendation remained to grant consent subject to the conditions and informatives, as set out within the main committee report.

The Chair thanked Brooke Storey Vowles for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited William Avery (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

•         The application followed two highly productive pre-application processes and extensive dialogue with the case officer and the planning team.

•         In commending the hard work of the officers involved, it was asserted that there was nothing before the committee that, when considered in the context of the enforcement history and what were believed to be non-material unrelated objections, necessitated anything other than a straightforward delegated approval for the extensions to the house and the conversion already allowed via the appeal. However, the representative acknowledged and understood the community concerns.

•         The applicant representative reassured members that the applicant was committed to resolving previous breaches and to constructing the policy-compliant design. The permission was required for the property owner to begin rectifying the previous breaches, proceed with the building works, and move forward with their lives. The representative detailed that he had advised the applicant that the proposed design was entirely policy-compliant and expressed delight that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) concurred.

•         The change of use had already been established through the appeal. The quality of accommodation had been confirmed to be policy compliant. The existing deviation from the previously approved roof design had been rectified with the twin gable design, which was fully compliant with the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). It was noted that there was no material change to the amenity impact when compared to the 2017 approval and the allowed appeal for application reference 2022/3944.

•         In concluding, the applicants representative detailed that the proposed development would result in two high-specification three-bedroom homes, contributing to the Council’s housing targets. While this was a modest contribution, it was described as a contribution, nonetheless.

The Chair thanked William Avery for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

•         As a question of clarification, the Chair sought details around the reasons for the numerous previous breaches of the planning rules. In response, William Avery conveyed that he had only become involved with the development after the breaches had occurred. Upon reviewing the scheme, he considered the roof to be very well designed and the internal accommodation to be of high quality. Despite this, the appeal had failed, and it was fully accepted that the breaches now needed to be resolved. William Avery expressed regret that the breaches had occurred but emphasised the commitment to resolving the issues. Efforts to address the breaches had been ongoing for the past year, and although the process had been slow, the goal was to obtain approval and proceed with rectifying the roof.

The Chair thanked William Avery for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

•         Members sought clarification about the outcome of the enforcement notice that had been served upon the applicant, to which Brooke Storey Vowles (Career Grade Planning Officer) confirmed that the enforcement notice was currently at appeal. Following on from the previous question, members sought clarification on the decision made prior to the appeal. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) explained that the previous planning application regarding the roof level had been refused on design grounds as it did not accord with the SPD on residential extensions and alterations. This decision was subsequently appealed, and the appeal was upheld by the Planning Inspector. The current enforcement appeal pertained to the roof, and it was registered but undecided. This raised related questions around whether granting planning permission would resolve the enforcement appeal. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) clarified that if the works were carried out in accordance with the approved plan, it would effectively resolve the issues.

•         Members raised concerns around the front of the property in Shirley Gardens, specifically noting the presence of a double yellow line and the absence of a dropped curb. Clarification was requested on the management of the landscaping and the installation of the dropped curb, as well as the party responsible for bearing the associated costs. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control) clarified that the applicant would be responsible for paying the new dropped curb and would go through the usual process of applying to the Highways Service. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) added that this arrangement had been approved by the Planning Inspector under the previous appeal, which was upheld.

•         Members expressed concern about the numerous breaches of planning rules and enforcement actions over several years, and inquired about the Council's long-term strategy for handling such breaches in Brent. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that in accordance with section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an applicant could apply for retrospective planning permission once a development had been carried out. Any enforcement action was required to be proportionate to the breach and expedient, but the government also recognised the possibility of regularising breaches through retrospective applications and making changes to schemes to ensure policy compliance. In relation to the present application, planning permission had been granted in 2017 for extensions to a house, including a two-storey side to rear extension with a hipped roof to match the main house. The works were not carried out in accordance with the planning permission, leading to an application to retain the built structure. The roof over the two-storey side to rear extension was at an odd, pitched angle, steeper and higher than the main house roof, raising concerns among officers. The appeal was dismissed, and the Planning Inspector had agreed with the findings of officers. An enforcement notice was subsequently served, but the applicant sought to regularise the situation by amending the roof to two gables, in line with the current SPD. Conditions had been imposed to ensure the works were completed within 12 months, should planning permission was granted. The enforcement notice would remain in effect until the works were completed and the enforcement team was satisfied that the breach had been resolved.

•         As a further issue relating to the process for dealing with unauthorised developments in alleyways or converted garages into flats members highlighted the issues of resource and capacity to support enforcement action, which the Chair advised were matters that would need to be raised with the relevant Cabinet Member, as it was not within the Planning Committee’s purview to make decisions on such matters.  As a final comment, members commended the enforcement team and planning officers for their efforts in handling what was acknowledged as a difficult case and bringing it into compliance, and noted the importance of compassion in ensuring that developments meet policy requirements. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) additionally commended Brooke Storey Vowles (Career Grade Planning Officer) for her outstanding work in resolving the case. Proactive engagement from developers to rectify mistakes and work towards consented schemes was also welcomed by planning officers.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 7; Against 0; Abstention: 1).