Wider rear extension at 85 Bayham Road, Sevenoaks

What was proposed

The application sought to make the approved rear extension 10 centimetres wider and reduce its distance from the boundary to 20 centimetres.

“- 25/00285/MMA Revised expiry date 18 August 2025 Proposal: Amendment to 23/00030/HOUSE to alter the width of the rear extension and reduce the distance between the rear extension and adjacent fence/boundary.”

“Description of proposal 2 This application seeks to obtain a minor material amendment to vary the plans approved under application 23/00030/HOUSE. The change to the approved plans would permit the extension to be 10cm wider than as approved (to widest point) and…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the changes would not significantly harm the area’s character, neighbouring amenities or nearby conservation areas.

“In this case, the pitch of the roof would mitigate some of the harm in this regard. Additionally, more recent 2022 BRE guidance states that, in relation to gardens, “It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March”.”

“Visual Intrusion 30 Section 5.5 of the Residential Extensions SPD states that proposals should not significantly alter the nature of the outlook from neighbouring properties. In this case, the parent permission found that the principal outlook from the neighbouring property at no.84 would comprise their own amenity space, surrounding boundary treatments and built form associated with neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council and residents objected, citing loss of light, inaccurate plans, enforcement concerns, loss of outlook, overbearing effects and height.

“Consultations Sevenoaks Town Council 11 The most recent comment provided by the Town Council objected to the proposal stating the following:”

“Sevenoaks Town Council reiterated its previous recommendation for refusal on the grounds of loss of light, as well as inability to determine whether the plans as proposed match the structure delivered and whether the latter would pass a 45- degree light test. Informative: Sevenoaks Town Council strongly advised that manual measurements and light tests be conducted on site by the Planning Officer, due to the rear extension already having been built.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application and a parish representative speaking for it.

Members’ concerns

Members focused on the light tests, permitted development rights, the extension’s size, overshadowing and its effect on neighbouring property.

“Members asked questions of clarification of the officers with a focus on tests carried out at the property, permitted development rights and potential rectifying actions to be taken. The Officer explained that the initial application passed the 45 degree light test (the light test). The current structure failed the light test although there were mitigating factors including the mono pitched roof which sloped downwards. The impact was considered acceptable.”

“Under permitted development rights the proposal could have been taller and up to the boundary however, it would not be as wide and different materials would have been required, to ensure they matched the main dwelling. It was highlighted that existing case law indicated that permitted development rights would allow for a rear extension that could be close to the boundary and this was a material consideration in an application.”

Minutes