Retrospective side extension at 14 Christchurch Avenue, Rainham

Reconstructing a two-storey side extension

The application sought to reconstruct a two-storey side extension with a first-floor set back and a hipped roof.

“The Committee considered a report that sought permission for the reconstruction of the two-storey side extension to incorporate a set back at first floor and have a hipped roof.”

“The proposed side extension would be 2.6m wide, with matching eaves to the main house. The first floor would be set back from the front façade by 1.4m, incorporating a pitched roof pitched over the ground floor projection. The roof would be set down from the ridge to the main roof and hipped to match the existing dwelling.”

Minutes

Called in after earlier refusals

A ward councillor called in the application, noting that previous versions of the extension had been refused for being excessive and eroding the gap between properties.

“The application had been called–in by a Ward Councillor. With its agreement Councillor Trevor Mckeever addressed the Committee stating the following objections.”

“Councillor Mckeever reiterated concerns regarding the proposal's bulk, scale and relationship with the street scene, noting that previous applications had been refused on the grounds that the extension was considered excessive, failed to remain subordinate to the host dwelling and eroded the characteristic spacing between properties.”

Minutes

Objectors said the harm remained

Objectors said the extension had already been built without permission, was subject to an enforcement notice, and that the amendments had not been shown to overcome the earlier planning harm.

“[name withheld] addressed the Committee in objection to the application. She stated that the proposal should not be considered in isolation as the extension had already been constructed without planning permission, had been refused planning permission on more than one occasion and was subject to an enforcement notice requiring demolition to ground floor level. She considered these to be material planning considerations.”

“[name withheld] referred to the officer's conclusion that the proposal had overcome the reasons for previous refusals through amendments including a first-floor setback, a hipped roof and a reduced ridge height. However, she contended that the report did not adequately explain how these changes overcame the planning harm previously identified.”

Minutes

The applicant's agent cited disability needs

The applicant's agent explained that the extension would provide ground-floor, wheelchair-accessible accommodation for a family member with a serious disability, supported by medical evidence.

Officers said the design now complied

Officers said the amended design was acceptable, would not harm neighbours or the street scene, and gave significant weight to the applicant's disability under equality duties.

“The officer then summarised the material planning considerations set out in the report, namely the impact on design, character and the street scene, neighbouring amenity, highways and parking considerations and equality matters. In respect of design and appearance, Members were advised that the proposal had been assessed against the Council's design guidance, taking account of previous decisions, and officers were satisfied that the amended design was acceptable.”

“The officer also highlighted the equality considerations set out in paragraph 9.11 of the report. Significant weight had been given to the circumstances of the applicant, who had impaired mobility, and to the Council's duties under the Equality Act 2010. Having considered these matters, officers concluded that the recommendation to grant planning permission would not conflict with the Council's obligations under the legislation.”

Minutes

Officers recommended approval

Officers recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

“The officer concluded by advising that, having regard to all material planning considerations, the recommendation before Members was that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the committee report. Officers considered that these measures were sufficiently robust to address the planning issues identified.”

Minutes

Approved unanimously

The committee resolved to grant permission, voting unanimously in line with the officer recommendation.

“Following discussion and consideration the Committee Resolved to Grant planning permission subject to conditions in the report.”

“The Committee voted unanimously in favour of officer recommendation.”

Minutes