Rear extension at 66 Laurel Avenue, Potters Bar

What was proposed

The proposal would demolish the existing side extension and build part single-storey and part two-storey rear extensions, increasing the home from three to four bedrooms.

“DEVELOPMENT Demolition of existing side extension and construction of part single, part two storey rear extension.”

“The application seeks planning permission for a ground floor extension and a first-floor extension above, which would increase the property from 3 to 4 bedrooms. This development would be facilitated by the demolition of a small rear utility extension.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey end-of-terrace home with a driveway, rear garden, detached garage and a public footpath along its eastern boundary.

“The application site is occupied by a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling, forming part of a row of three properties, located on the eastern side of the road. The site features a front driveway, a rear garden, and a detached garage located to the side of the house.”

“A public footpath runs along the entire eastern boundary of the site. This path serves as a pedestrian route to a commercial car park at the rear of the property, while also providing a shortcut to Potters Bar Railway Station.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Objections concerned possible strategic intensification, residential amenity, drainage, safety, notification, party-wall matters, construction traffic and asbestos.

“Strategic Intensification and HMO Conversion: Residents object to an approach involving multiple overlapping applications for this site. They argue this is a tactic to bypass planning scrutiny for an eventual high-occupancy House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).”

“Procedural and Logistical Issues: Immediate neighbours report a lack of official notification and the absence of a mandatory Party Wall Agreement. Additionally, there are concerns regarding construction traffic in the narrow cul-de-sac and potential asbestos risks during demolition.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee against the application on behalf of himself and local residents, and the Chair read a speech from a Community Advocate against it.

Members’ discussion

Officers said the garage would remain ancillary to the main home and that independent living accommodation would need consent; members considered future use speculation immaterial.

“In response to Member queries, Officers confirmed that they had recommended an informative with regard to the garage to remind the applicant it could only be used for ancillary enjoyment of the main dwelling house. Independent living accommodation would require consent. There would be no impact on residential amenity.”

“Members acknowledged that they could only consider the application as it was presented in front of them and that speculation over future use was not a material planning consideration.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted 11 for and one against agreeing the recommendations, with no abstentions.

“It was proposed by: Councillor D Lambert, seconded by Councillor M Allen that the recommendations as set out in the report be agreed.”

“For: (11 total) - Councillors M Allen, M Amron, G Briski, H Green, A Kaza, D Lambert, P Morris, P Richards, B Rosehill, R Georgiou, M Handley. Against: (1 total) – Councillor N Susman. Abstain: (0 total) – No Votes Total votes cast: 12”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions.

“RESOLVED that Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.”

Minutes