Side, rear and basement extensions at 82 Chevening Road, London NW6

What was proposed

The application proposed side-to-rear and basement extensions with front and rear lightwells, plus replacement front and rear timber windows.

“PROPOSAL IN DETAIL Proposed single-storey side-to-rear extension, basement extension with front and rear lightwells, and replacement of existing timber windows to front and rear elevations of dwellinghouse. This application seeks to provide additional extensions and alterations to the previously approved 24/0414 application (decision dated 12/07/2024).”

“A single storey rear extension is proposed to the outrigger with a depth of 2m from the rear wall of the existing outrigger. It is proposed to have a flat roof, extending beyond the width of the existing rear outrigger to form a wrap-around extension in connection with the side infill extension, with parapet heights of 3m from garden level.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling in the Queens Park Conservation Area and is not a listed building.

“Replacement of existing timber windows to front and rear elevations The application proposes the same window replacements and alterations to the subject property as per the previously approved (24/0414) application. EXISTING The application site consists of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling house located on the southern side of Chevening Road. The application site is located in the Queens Park Conservation Area but is not a listed building.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it would preserve the conservation area and would not harm neighbouring residential amenity.

“The application has not been accompanied with the fire safety information set out within D12a of London Plan. As the application relates to a householder development it would be subject to a Reasonable Exception Statement, rather than needing to submit a fire statement in line with policy D12a. It should be noted that formal approval under the Building Regulations will be required if the scheme goes ahead where fire safety would be reviewed in further detail. Equalities 47.”

“The development is considered to be in keeping with the character of the dwellinghouse and the conservation area and is not considered to have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host property or wider conservation area. It is also not considered to adversely impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Main objections

Objections concerned basement depth, extension height and depth, conservation area guidance, overdevelopment, and possible effects on neighbours.

“In any case, the maximum height of the parapet will be 3m. Responses to other neighbour comments received are tabulated below: Objection CommentsOfficer Remarks Basement depth extends rearward beyond Council Basement SPD Guidance An assessment of the extents of the basement extension has been provided with the Detailed Considerations Section of this report.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said the proposal had been reduced and now involved a two-metre rear extension and a minor basement adjustment.

The committee decision

The committee unanimously granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in the committee report.

“As there were no further questions or points of clarification raised by the Committee for response by the Planning Officers the Chair then moved straight to the vote.”

“The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives detailed within the main committee report.”

Minutes