Side extension and raised patio at 39 Meadowmead Avenue, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for a single-storey side extension, raised rear patio and rear dormer window.

“Proposed development: Erection of a single storey side extension and raised patio to rear garden. Dormer window on rear elevation. (retrospective).”

Officer report

The site and its changes

The semi-detached house had a larger roof, rear dormer, side and rear extensions, raised rear platform, screen and extensive hardstanding.

“The roof form has been enlarged via a conversion from a hipped roof to gable roof form and a dormer window inserted into the rear roof slope. The side of the property has a single storey side extension that becomes a two storey gabled extension towards the rear of the property…”

“At the rear the property has a part single store part two storey extension. Ground levels at the rear have been raised to form a raised platform allowing direct access from the inside the property. A screen of approximately 1.8 to 2m in height has been erected along the southern edge of this raised platform.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered similar extensions and roof works, but the approved scheme was not built exactly as authorised.

“Proposal 2.1 The application benefits from the permission referenced 23/01099/FUL, however the works to implement that consent have not been carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.”

“- The single storey addition to the side of the property is not set back from the front elevation and now sits flush with the front elevation. - A raised platform/patio has been constructed to the rear of the property in excess of the 30cm allowed under ‘permitted development’. - The dormer window on the rear roof slope is larger than that previously approved. - The roof above the porch has changed from a lean-to style to a hipped roof.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the changes acceptable in design, residential amenity and highway terms, subject to conditions controlling drainage, privacy and other matters.

“The proposed changes do not significantly differ from those previously approved under the extant scheme. The changes proposed represent an alteration to the design of the individual elements of the scheme and are considered to integrate sympathetically with the existing property and the street scene.”

“The area of hardstanding to the front directly abuts the public highway giving rise to potential surface water drainage on to the public highway. To address this a condition can be imposed that requires an appropriate drainage gully to be installed to catch this water and allow it to drain into the site. As such the proposal will not be to the detriment of highway safety.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Residents and councillors raised concerns about retrospective works, terracing, privacy, materials, drainage, lighting, ground levels and possible overdevelopment.

“Response The raised platform at the rear of the site does require express planning consent as it is more than 30cm above the original ground levels. The submitted drawings show a 1.8m high screen on the southern side of the patio. A screen has since been erected on site mitigating any materially…”

“Response Condition 2 of the permission 23/01099/FUL required the external facing materials to match those used in the host property. However, the original property could have been re-roofed and elevations painted without the need for express planning consent. The works would have been considered to be ‘permitted development’. The extension would then have been required to match the host property.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident addressed the Panel, and a ward councillor’s statement was received, circulated, read and posted online.

What changed during consideration

The presenting officer corrected the report, explaining that rear hardstanding could be permitted development and removing the proposed lawn condition.

“The presenting officer reported that paragraph 6.3.7 of the reports was incorrect and the hardstanding at the rear of the property can be considered to be permitted development. Therefore, the condition that required an area to the rear of the site to be laid to lawn has been deleted.”

Minutes

The vote

The Panel voted to approve the recommendation for conditional approval.

“The Panel then considered recommendation that the application be conditionally approved subject to criteria listed in the report. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was approved subject to the report’s conditions as amended, including deletion of the rear lawn requirement.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report as amended.”

“Condition that required an area to the rear of the site to be laid to lawn has been deleted.”

Minutes