Single-storey side/rear extension at 87 Birkbeck Road, London NW7

What was proposed

The applicant proposed a single-storey side and rear extension with four rooflights after demolishing the existing rear extension.

“Single storey side/rear extension with 4no. rooflights following the demolition of existing rear extension…”

“It is important to note that a large portion of the extension has been previously approved under the extant permission (22/1644/HSE). Since the approval of this extension, an extension has been built at the site, albeit not in accordance with the approved plans. This application seeks to demolish the as-built extension, and construct the proposed extension.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a terraced dwelling and is outside a conservation area and Article 4 area, with no site trees protected by preservation orders.

“The application site contains a terraced dwelling house at 87 Birkbeck Road, London, NW7 4BJ. The site is not within a conservation area (designated as Article 2(3) land in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended) and is not within an area covered by an Article 4 direction. Furthermore, there are no conditions attached to the site which remove permitted development rights.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier decisions included a lawful roof extension, an approved extension, a withdrawn similar application and an approved conservatory.

“Reference: 25/1260/192 Address: Birkbeck Road, London, NW7 4BJ Decision: Lawful Decision Date: April 2025 Description: Roof extension involving rear dormer window with juliette balcony, 2no. front facing rooflights and new rear windows…”

“Reference: 25/1258/HSE Address: Birkbeck Road, London, NW7 4BJ Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: May 2025 Description: Single storey side and rear extension with 4no. rooflights following demolition of the existing conservatory…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension would be subordinate, fit the locality and avoid unacceptable harm to neighbours’ light, outlook or privacy.

“It is not found that the infilling of the proposed courtyard, 2m x 2.5m depth, would further exacerbate any existing effects on the character and apperance of the property or locality. Further, the Applicant has confirmed that the materials will match those of the existing dwellinghouse. As such, on the above grounds, this application is recommended for approval on the assessment of impact on character and appearance.”

“Additionally, the impact of the proposed development on the neighbouring site at no.85 would be limited in terms of unacceptable harm, regarding overshadowing, overlooking and dominance. This is due to the proposed height of the flank wall of the rear extension along the shared boundary with no. To add, this element of the proposal would have a height of 2.00 metres to the eaves with an overall height of 3.40 metres.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-five neighbours objected, raising concerns about drainage, plans, design guidance, materials, amenity space, neighbour effects and other matters.

“- Concern surrounding lack of drainage. - Updated design and Access Statement hasn't been provided. - Plans are misleading. - Proposal likely fails the BRE guidance.”

“- Proposal doesn't comply with the guidance of the RDG. - Effects on amenity of adjacent neighbours. - Proposed materials not demonstrated to match. - Loss of rear amenity space. - The unlawful concrete platform beneath the existing structure has not been addressed or shown in any elevation or section. - Certificate A served incorrectly. - Party wall issues. Including damage from existing extension.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, while an objector and the applicant addressed the committee.

Questions and discussion

Members questioned the speakers and officers before discussing the officer recommendation.

“The Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.”

“Following discussion, the Committee moved to a vote on Officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

The vote

Five members voted for approval, with no votes against and no abstentions.

“For – (approval) 5 Against – (approval) 0 Abstention – (approval) 0”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved, with delegated authority for minor changes to conditions after consultation with the chair or vice-chair.

“RESOLVED that the application be approved and the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations,…”

Minutes