Four-bedroom house extension at 62 Station Road, Kings Langley

What was proposed

The application proposed demolitions, side and rear extensions, a loft conversion with dormer, replacement garage, solar panels and a heat pump.

“Relevant planning history 1.1 26/0069/CLPD - Certificate of Lawfulness Proposed Development: Change of use of residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a small House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) for a maximum of 6 occupants. Approved. 1.2 25/1960/CLPD - Certificate of Lawfulness Proposed Development: Loft conversion including rear dormer; single-storey rear extension; demolition of existing garage and construction of replacement garage; solar panels and heat pump.”

“This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of existing shed, storages and garage; construction of two-storey side extension and single-storey rear and extension; loft conversion including rear dormer; construction of replacement garage; solar panels and heat pump.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a semi-detached dwelling with rear access, similar neighbouring homes and building works understood to be lawfully implemented.

“The dwelling has a grey tiled pitched roof form, and a white painted pebbledash render exterior. To the front of the dwelling, there is a mixture of hard and soft landscaping. The dwelling contains a rear vehicle access, off Egg Farm Lane. The neighbouring properties are semi-detached dwellings of similar scale.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, the applicant spoke in favour, and a parish councillor also addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members debated parking, HMO fallback, outdoor space, overdevelopment, neighbouring amenity, the side extension’s prominence and the character of the area.

“The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal relied on one parking space within the garage to the rear of the property, accessible via an existing access. No parking spaces were proposed to the front of the property. In addition, the application site was eligible for two parking permits for the controlled parking zone.”

“In response to a question, the Planning Officer clarified that the only element of the scheme which could not be implemented under permitted development was the two-storey side extension. A Committee Member expressed the view that the side extension may represent over-development of the site, and this was endorsed by other Committee Members.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted 8 for refusal, none against and two abstentions after a motion citing parking, amenity space and harm to area character.

“Councillor Morris moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal, by reason of the lack of car parking and lack of amenity space, would result in a harmful impact on the character of the area. Full wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.”

“On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the lack of car parking and amenity space was considered harmful to the character of the area.

“That the application be refused on the basis that the proposal, by reason of the lack of car parking and lack of amenity space, would result in a harmful impact on the character of the area. Full wording of the reasons for refusal would be circulated to Committee Members separately.”

Minutes