Front and rear extensions at Level 4 East, Hendon, London NW4

What was proposed

The application sought permission for single-storey extensions at the front and rear of the house.

“26/0275 Site location: 9, GREENWAY, ALDRIDGE, WALSALL, WS9 8XE Application proposal: Full planning application for single storey front and rear extensions Application type: Full Application: Householder Link to application documents:https://go.walsall.gov.uk/planningapps?id=26/0275 Applicant: H Nahal 9 Greenway, Aldridge, Walsall, WS9 8XE Planning agent: Jacob Sedgemore, STONELEIGH ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, MAPLE HOUSE, KINGSWOOD BUSINESS PARK, HOLYHEAD ROAD, ALBRIGHTON, WV7…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The house is among modern detached homes facing a footpath, with rear garages and several nearby front or rear extensions.

“Recommendation Planning Committee resolve to Delegate to the Head of Planning & Building Control to Grant Planning Permission Subject to Conditions Site and surroundings A site visit was carried out on 02-04-26. The application house is a line of modern detached houses which face each other across a footpath at the front. There is no vehicular access to the front of the houses and they all have detached garages at the rear. The houses are of a variety of designs.”

“Land to the north is Green Belt land however this is approximately 60 metres from the application site.”

Officer report

Planning history

There were no earlier planning applications, pre-application advice or enforcement investigations for the site.

“Planning history Planning applications • No history Pre-application advice • No history Enforcement investigations • No history…”

Officer report

The officer assessment

Officers considered the design suitable, neighbour impacts limited, parking unchanged and ecology acceptable, and recommended approval subject to conditions.

“Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain Ecology have no objections to the application and no conditions are provided. This proposal is considered to be exempt from mandatory biodiversity net gain as it is a householder application.”

“Conclusion and reasons for decision On balance, this application is considered acceptable when assessed against the local and national planning policies and guidance as set out in this report. It is considered that the proposal would have a limited impact on neighbour amenity.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The ecology officer raised no objection, while two objections cited the 45-degree code, loss of kitchen light and loss of a front-window view.

“Consultee comments (planning officer’s summary) Ecology Officer No objection to this application on ecological grounds…”

“Neighbour and interested parties’ comments (planning officer’s summary) Objection(s) 2 comments received objecting to proposal support for the following reasons: • Extensions breaches 45-degree code • Loss of light into kitchen window • Loss of view from front bay window…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One speaker against the application raised concerns about proximity, light, dust and construction or future-use noise.

Members discussed conditions

Members considered controlling construction dust and noise, while officers explained possible management-plan requirements and members cautioned against disproportionate conditions.

“The Senior Planning Officer stated that construction management conditions were not normally imposed on householder applications but could be considered by the Committee if deemed necessary.”

“There followed a period of debate. Comments were received from Members regarding mitigating dust and noise during construction. The Interim Head of Planning and Building Control explained that if Members felt necessary, a condition could be applied to require a construction and environmental management plan; such plan would require details of dust suppression measures, hours of working and how noise and vibrations are controlled, however, they were not usually applied to…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Nawaz moved the recommendation, Councillor Singh Sohal seconded it, and the motion passed with nine votes for and one against.

“It was moved by Councillor Nawaz and seconded by Councillor Singh Sohal and upon being put to the vote it was;”

“Resolved (9 For, 1 Against, 0 Abstentions)”

Minutes

The decision

The committee delegated approval to the Head of Planning and Building Control, subject to conditions and their amendment and finalisation.

“That Planning Committee Delegated to the Head of Planning & Building Control to Grant Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and subject to the amendment and finalisation of conditions and subject to:”

Minutes

Additional condition

The committee required a plan for dust suppression and screening between neighbouring properties.

“A plan for dust suppression and screening between neighbouring properties.”

Minutes