Wrap-around house extension at 4 Napier Close, West Drayton

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey wrap-around extension to the side and rear, with changes to the windows.

“Applicant: [name withheld]: Napier Close, West Drayton, UB7 9LB Proposal: Erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear and amendment to fenestration. Summary of Recommendation:”

“Householder planning permission is sought for the erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear, and amendments to fenestrations.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey end-terraced house with an existing rear extension and enclosed rear garden in a mainly residential area.

“The application property comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located on the south -western side of Napier Close in West Drayton. The property has been previously extended by way of a single storey flat roofed rear extension and a secondary timber c anopy which appears to have been in place for more than 4 years. The property benefits from a flat and enclosed rear garden.”

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, made up similarly designed two storey dwellinghouses, both semi-detached and terraced.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable in design, residential amenity, outdoor space and parking terms.

“Policy DMHD 1 of Hillingdon Council's Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) states that planning applications relating to alterations and extensions of dwellings will be required to ensure that, vi) adequate garden space is retained, while Policy DMHB 18 states that developers should provide amenity space in accordance with Table 5.3 of the local plan. Table 5.3 requires developments to provide between 40 and 100 sq. m.”

“The front of the property is laid to grass and hardstanding and has a dropped kerb to facilitate off street parking for at 2 vehicles. The dwelling would be retained as a Class C3 residential dwelling, and it is not considered that there would be an increased demand in parking or result in additional parking stress or highway safety.”

Officer report

What residents said

A petition and nine individual objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, neighbours’ amenity, garden space, parking, vehicle movements and alleged HMO use.

“Planning Officer Response A petition of objection with 30 valid signatories has been submitted , 1. Overdevelopment of the plot which would be out of keeping with the locality, the rhythm of development in Napier Close and would create an unfortunate precedent. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.4 to 7.8. 2.”

“I. Concerns raised that the property is being occupied as an HMO. The applicant has confirmed in writing that the property is a C3 dwellinghouse occupied by family members and not an HMO. An officer site visit confirmed, on the balance of probability, that the property is in C3 use. II. The development will result in an intensification of use which would increased parking stress. A full and detailed assessment of the visual impact is set out in paragraphs 7.16 to 7.17.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A petitioner spoke against the application, while Councillor Jan Sweeting supported the petition and requested a site visit.

What members discussed

Members discussed daylight, parking, existing structures, the fallback position and whether alleged HMO use would need separate action or permission.

“A question was raised as to whether Anti-Social Behaviour or Planning Enforcement had been made aware of residents’ concerns regarding the alleged unauthorised HMO use of the property. It was stated that no enforcement action had been recorded to date and that residents were advised to continue reporting concerns directly to the Council.”

“Clarification was sought on daylight impacts, parking provision and the status of the existing development. Officers explained that the existing structure, which had originally been unauthorised, had become lawful through the passage of time and represented a material fallback position. It was noted that the site provided off-street parking for two vehicles and that the north-facing orientation reduced the significance of any sunlight loss.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was moved and seconded, then approved with five votes in favour and two abstentions.

“Members considered the robustness of the officer report and were advised that any lawful HMO use would require a separate application. The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded and, when put to the vote, was approved with five votes in favour and two abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved in line with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.”

Minutes