Wider side extension at 18 Wellington Road, Ashford

What was proposed

The application sought to vary approved plans for a wider single-storey side extension serving a property subdivided into two flats.

“Description of Current Proposal 3.1 The applicant seeks to vary condition 3 (approved plans) of permission 24/01542/FUL to substitute with amended ones. This application was for roof alterations and extensions to create habitable roof space, with insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, erection of single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Changes to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb.”

“The amendment to the approved plans relates solely to the single storey side extension which has been built 0.65 (65cm) metres closer to the boundary. This results in wider ground floor bedrooms to those shown on the approved floor plans. It is, therefore, only this element of the original permission which is under assessment with this planning application. It is also important to note that, although retrospective, this has no relevance to the decision-making process.”

Officer report

The site and changes

The built side extension is 0.65 metres wider than approved, set 0.45 metres from the boundary and 0.35 metres near the front.

“The applicant has substantially completed works relating to 24/01542/FUL. However, the single storey side extension has been built closer to the side boundary than shown on the approved plan. The extension is set-in 0.45 metres (45cm) from the flank boundary, though towards the front, the set in is slightly reduced to 0.35 (35cm) due to the boundary line not being exactly parallel with the flank wall of the development.”

“The approved plans showed a side extension coming towards No. Wellington Road which included a loft conversion and extension above. This was set in from the side boundary by 1.1 metres. The proposed, and as built, side extension is some 0.65 metres (65 cm) wider than approved, thus coming closer to the side boundary. It has a flat roof, as approved, creating a stepped element where it connects to the roof extension above.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered extensions, a certificate of lawfulness and the two-flat scheme; a separate application for a ten-person HMO was refused.

“Relevant Planning History 2.1 The site has the following planning history: 24/01283/PDH Prior Approval Notification for a single storey rear extension extending 8 metres beyond the rear wall of the original house, with a maximum height of 3 metres and a height of 3 metres to the eaves Granted 10.12.2024 24/01287/CPD Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed development of a single storey side/rear extension, extending beyond the rear elevation by 3 metres.”

“25/00805/FUL Roof alterations and extensions including front and rear hip to gable extensions, extension over existing side extension, and extending the roof to the rear, with the insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, to create habitable roof space. Changes to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb. All to facilitate the conversion of a C3 dwellinghouse into a 10 person HMO (Sui-Generis) with associated parking and amenities.”

Officer report

Light and neighbour impact

Officers considered the remaining separation, single-storey height and lack of side windows would avoid significant loss of light, outlook, privacy or overbearing impact.

“It is not considered that the additional width will detrimentally impact the amenities of No. The proposal is set in some 0.45m from the side boundary and No. 20 is also set in from the side boundary. As such a separation distance of 1.25 metres (1.15 metres towards the front) remains between the side of the development and No. 20.”

“The increase of 0.65 metres (65 cm) in width to the side extension would not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, including No. 20 adjacent. The built development does not give rise to unacceptable issues of loss of light, overbearing impact, loss of outlook or loss of privacy. A degree of impact is acknowledged; however, it is not considered that this will be significant and does not justify refusal of permission.”

Officer report

Objections received

Eleven objection letters raised concerns including parking, highway safety, design, the boundary, the larger footprint and the planning process.

“Lack of parking & highway safety concerns • Changes to the overall design and appearance of property • Visual and architectural harm and out of character appearance • Incrementally increasing the size/design of original building • Side extension too close to boundary • Parking too close to building • Larger footprint than what had been originally approved • Other concerns relating to HMO use (not relevant to this application) • Built extension is not as per plans from…”

“It is important to note that many of the letters of objection relate solely to the HMO application, (ref. 25/00805/FUL). This is a separate application, which has now been refused. Moreover, some letters refer to other parts of the development under 24/01542/FUL. This application is purely assessing the additional 0.65 (65cm) of single storey side extension.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the applicant’s planning representative and a ward councillor’s representative spoke about the breach, light, parking, future use and planning control.

The committee debate

Members discussed enforcement, the breach of the earlier permission, harm to neighbours, loss of light and whether the limits had been deliberately pushed.

“During the debate the following key issues were raised:”

“The Council should be enforcing the planning approval that was previously granted. The applicant had breached the initial planning approval and if the Council had been aware of the breach whilst building work was being undertaken this would have been addressed. The property is to the detriment of the neighbouring residents 4. Loss of light to one of the side windows. This is a case of a deliberately ‘pushing the limits’.”

Minutes

The votes

The approval motion fell by two votes to eight, with four abstentions; the refusal motion then passed by twelve votes to none, with two abstentions.

“For Councillors Beecher & Burrell – 2 votes Against Councillors Bateson, Buck, Clarke, Geraci, Howkins, Lee, Nichols, Woodward – 8 votes Abstain Councillors Beatty, Chandler, Grant, Rutherford – 4 votes…”

“The motion to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 8 of the report FELL”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee overturned the officer recommendation and refused the application because of poor design and harmful loss of light and overbearing impact at No. 20.

“The proposal is rejected due to the poor design and negative effect on amenity of the neighbouring 20 Wellington Road property due to loss of light and overbearing nature under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, adopted 26 th February 2009, the NPPF and the SPD on Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development, April 2011.”

“The proposal is rejected due to the poor design and negative effect on amenity of the neighbouring 20 Wellington Road property due to loss of light and overbearing nature under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, adopted 26 th February 2009, the NPPF and the SPD on Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development, April 2011.”

Minutes