House extensions and loft conversion at 71 Pine Walk, Carshalton

What was proposed

The application proposed front, side and rear extensions, a replacement garage, porch, patio changes, loft conversion, dormer, roof terrace and rooflights.

“The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a part one, part two storey front, side and rear extension involving replacement garage, a front entrance porch and alteration to existing patio to the rear, together with a conversion of the loft space involving increased ridge height, a dormer extension at rear with a roof terrace to rear and rooflights to the front and side roofslopes.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a detached house in a large plot within the Pine Walk Area of Special Local Character, next to a nature site and golf course.

“The application site is situated on the southern side of Pine Walk. The property comprises a two-storey detached single family dwelling that has been extended at ground and first floor level as indicated in the planning history section of the report further below. The dwelling is set within a large, spacious plot with a 90-metre deep rear garden. The house is set back a significant distance from the highway.”

“The application site is set within the Pine Walk Area of Special Local Character (ASLC) and is adjacent to Site with Importance for Nature Preservation (SINC) to the south.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and advice

Earlier permissions covered the house, an extension and conservatory; later pre-application advice found the initial scheme unacceptable and sought reductions and design changes.

“CAR/550 ‘Erection of detached house and garage. 125-394. Permission granted 02.02.1954. 2.12 70/6567 Erection of two storey extension to form breakfast room with bedroom over. 46-1-32. Permission granted 15.09.1970. S1989/33458 or 89/33458 Erection of a conservatory at rear. 125-394. Permission granted 03.07.1989.”

“The pre-application advice concluded that the scheme was unacceptable in design and amenity terms due to the rear extension being overly deep (6 metres at ground level and 4 metres at first floor) and bulky with uncharacteristic gable end roofs, which would cause a loss of outlook for adjacent properties.”

Officer report

Objections received

Four objection letters from one neighbouring address raised concerns about scale, appearance, light, garden impact, construction disturbance and badgers.

“The consultation on the application has received a total of 4 objection letters from 69 Pine Walk, which are available to view in full on the Council’s planning portal, and material planning considerations are addressed within the report:”

“Design ○ Excessive scale and bulk, disproportionate to neighbouring properties. ○ Visual impact ● Neighbour Amenity ○ Loss of natural light to the patio and rear garden area of No. 69. ○ Loss of light to windows of No.69. ○ Overbearing impact on the No. 69’s garden. ○ Disturbance from construction. ● Biodiversity ○ Badgers at the bottom of the rear garden of No. 71 and impact of the development on local biodiversity.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

An objector, a ward councillor and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about the proposal’s effects, design, amendments and family use.

What members discussed

Members considered the 45-degree test, roof height, obscure glazing, reduced depths, neighbouring extensions, ecology and whether impacts would be significant.

“In response to questions it was clarified that the side windows to the application would be required to be obscure glazed and have limited opening which would be secured by condition. Members observed photographs of the roof height line of the proposed application and that of neighbouring properties which showed application would not be significantly higher than neighbours. Members noted that there had been four objections which were all from the same neighbour.”

“It was clarified that the application would include a single front door, maintaining a single family dwelling. Members reviewed the plans in the presentation and the internal layout of the bedrooms, which suggested a single dwelling. Members noted that there had been a number of substantial, modern designed extensions to neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions in Appendix B, after finding no significant harm from light, outlook, enclosure, size or massing.

“In debate members acknowledged that all residential extensions created impact on neighbouring properties, drawing attention that after reviewing the details of the application and hearing from speakers it was suggested that the impact of this application would not be significant, in terms of loss of light, outlook or be overbearing in size and massing.”

“Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B.”

Minutes