Two-storey rear extension at 19A Melanie Close, Bexleyheath

What was proposed

A two-storey rear extension would project 2.3 metres, sit below the existing ridge and use a hipped roof matching the house.

“The proposal is for a two-storey rear extension.”

“The proposed two storey rear extension would be 2.3m deep from the rear of the existing property, appx. 1.3m set in from the shared boundary with 19/20 Melanie Close and would be set 0.45m below the ridge height of the existing roof. The extension will be set in slightly from both original side elevations of the property (by appx. 0.3m from the northeastern wall and appx. 0.45m from the southwestern wall).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a detached two-storey house beside Anchor Court and its retirement flats, in a primarily residential area.

“The property is a two-storey detached property located to the southwestern end of Melanie Close on the junction with Anchor Court, which provides access to Anchor Retirement Flats located to the rear of the application site.”

“The property is not located within a conservation area, nor is it listed or in close proximity to a building or structure protected as such. The proposal site is located within a primarily residential area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The house was approved in 1979, a garage in 1981, and a larger rear extension was refused in 2001 because of neighbour impacts.

“79/00117/FUL Four bedroomed detached house with garage space, also new vehicular access. Granted permission 15.03.1979”

“01/00265/FUL Part one/part two storey rear extension. Refused permission 14.06.2001 for the following reason:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the extension would respect the area and would not harm adjoining properties or conflict with the development plan.

“The key issues to consider are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area, and neighbouring occupier amenity.”

“It is considered that the proposed works would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not be harmful to the occupiers of the adjoining neighbouring properties. The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan when read as a whole.”

Officer report

Effects on neighbours

Officers considered separation distances, window positions and the design changes sufficient to avoid significant loss of light, outlook, privacy or an overbearing effect.

“The proposed extension works have been modestly setback further from the shared boundary with no.19/20 than the existing flank wall and have been shown to pass the 45-degree angle test from the closest rear facing window of no.19. In addition, the closest windows to the shared boundary adjoin a kitchen and a bathroom and it is therefore considered that the proposed works would not result in any significant loss of light or outlook nor create an overbearing impact for no.19.”

“The section of the retirement block which projects forward of the parallel section of block, would have a separation of approximately 21m from the closest point of the proposed extension. The separation distance would be in excess of the 16m window to wall separation distance outlined in the Bexley Design Guide SPD Part 1.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

No consultee responses were recorded, while four neighbouring addresses objected over construction access, parking, privacy, noise and light.

“Thirty adjoining neighbours were consulted on this application. Objections have been received from four neighbouring addresses. In summary the following objections have been raised.”

“Temporary impact on access and parking on Anchor Court during building phase ➢ Misrepresentation of Anchor Court parking as an extension of the road ➢ Loss of privacy for the flats adjacent to the car park ➢ Noise concerns would impact the health and wellbeing of the elderly residents during construction ➢ No use of the access or facilities belonging to Anchor Retirement properties will be permitted ➢ Loss of light…”

Officer report

Response to objections

Construction effects were considered temporary and manageable, while planning permission would not allow use of land belonging to the retirement properties.

“Objections have been received citing potential impacts on noise and air pollution and adverse impact on parking during the construction phase. These issues are considered not to be significant for a householder extension of this relatively modest scale. Any impact resulting from construction works would be temporary and there are other legislative regimes that can address such matters.”

“Anchor Court representatives have stated that no permission would be given to the applicants for parking of any necessary construction vehicles on their land. The grant of planning permission would not override land ownership and would not grant permission to the applicant for use of this land. Any use of the land during construction (if needed) would be a civil matter to be agreed between the relevant parties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector addressed the committee, followed by the agent speaking in support of the application.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the application and considered the observations, points and comments made by the speakers.

“The Committee discussed the application, considered all observations, points and comments made by the speakers and noted the report for this application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application by eight votes to one.

“Following their discussion, the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 8/1 to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation as set out in the report before them.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

The permission required commencement within three years, compliance with approved plans, matching materials and approval for new flank windows.

“The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission.”

“Reason: To ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the development. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Statutory Instrument revoking, re-enacting or amending that Order), no windows shall be formed in the flank elevations of the extension hereby approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.”

Officer report