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

What was proposed

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

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

Officer report

The site

The site contains a terraced dwelling and is not within a conservation area or Article 4 area.

“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

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the extension would respect the building and locality and would not adversely affect neighbouring occupiers.

“It is not found that the relocation of the flank wall of the extension by c100mm to straddle the boundary with that of No. 85 would further exacerbate any existing effects on the character and appearance of the property or locality relative to the approved scheme. Further, the Applicant has confirmed that the materials will match those of the existing dwellinghouse.”

“Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the locality. The development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This application is therefore recommended for APPROVAL.”

Officer report

Objections received

Twenty-three neighbouring responses objected, citing drainage, levels, design guidance, amenity, materials, party-wall issues and the concrete platform.

“Consultation letters were sent to 25 neighbouring properties, 23 responses were received which were in objection to the proposal.”

“- Concern surrounding lack of drainage. - Plans are misleading, and don't accurately show the level change between Nos. 85 and 87. - Proposal likely fails the BRE guidance. - Proposal doesn't comply with the guidance of the RDG. - Proposal does not comply with the Barnet Local Plan 2025 and the NPPF. - Effects on amenity of adjacent neighbours. - Proposed materials not demonstrated to match. - Loss of rear amenity space.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, and the applicant spoke in support.

Questions and vote

Members questioned the speakers and officers before voting on the recommendation to approve the application.

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

“The Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to conditions and delegated authority for minor changes after consultation with the Chair or Vice-Chair.

“RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to conditions 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…”

Minutes