House amendments at Garages West Of 48 And 50 Lytton Grove, Putney, London SW15

What was proposed

The application sought to regularise changes to the basement, windows, materials, rooflights and solar panels on an approved three-bedroom house.

“This Section 73 application seeks to amend condition 2 of planning permission dated 22/05/2024 (2021/4728) as varied by 2023/4223 (Demolition of existing garages and erection of single-storey (plus basement and roof level accommodation) 3-bedroom house. (Amendments to planning permission dated 24/08/20 ref. 2020/1240 to include a basement with lightwell and additional bedroom))”

“The proposed amendments are to the basement/lightwell, windows, materials and insertion of roof lights and installation of solar panels.”

Officer report

The site

The site was behind two homes, formerly contained garages, and was largely surrounded by two- and three-storey residential properties in a conservation area.

“The application site is located to the rear of 48 and 50 Lytton Grove. The site previously contained garages for off-street parking and it retains a driveway leading from the site to Lytton Grove. Redevelopment of the site was approved in August 2020 (LPA ref: 2020/1240) for the erection of a detached two-bedroom house.”

“As noted above, the site was previously occupied by garages, which have now been demolished. To date, the construction of the dwellinghouse is largely complete. The site is surrounded by two and three-storey detached and semi-detached residential properties. The…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions approved a two-bedroom house, a three-bedroom house, window changes and construction-management details, while two older garage schemes were refused.

“2024/1681 Details of construction management plan pursuant to Condition 8 of planning permission dated 29/06/2022 ref 2021/4728 (Demolition of existing garages and erection of single-storey (plus basement and roof level accommodation) 3-bedroom house. (Amendments to planning permission dated 24/08/20 ref. 2020/1240 to include a basement with lightwell and additional bedroom)). Approved.”

“2020/3833 Details of materials, landscaping, boundary treatment, site levels, cycle parking, arboricultural, construction management plan and bin storage pursuant to conditions 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 17 of planning permission dated 23/07/2020 ref 2020/1240 (Demolition of garages and erection of a new detached 2-bedroom house). Approved.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval with conditions because the amendments were acceptable in design terms, would not harm neighbours, and retained a satisfactory standard of accommodation.

“Conclusion 6.1 The proposal to regularise variations from the approved drawings associated with planning permission ref: 2023/4223 is considered to be acceptable. The proposed amendments are acceptable in design terms and are not considered to adversely impact neighbouring residential properties. The reduction in floorspace at basement level will not lead to an undue reduction in the standard of accommodation afforded to future occupants.”

“Official Official acceptable. Amendments to windows at this level do not present design or amenity concerns with respect to the development. At ground floor level, the introduction of openable windows would have a modest impact in terms of noise escape and is not considered to harm neighbouring amenity. Increased ventilation to the ground floor will improve the standard of accommodation and serve to safeguard against the impact of climate change.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Fifteen responses were received, including six objections, concerning materials, solar-panel glare, noise, privacy, overlooking and the application’s validity.

“A number of objections have been received from neighbouring owners and occupiers. As outlined above, the application is a Section 73A application to vary Condition 2 of planning permission ref: 2023/4223 in order to regularise variances in the as built dwellinghouse from the approved drawings.”

“The application is not valid as the details of ownership differ from that outlined within the land registry records. The proposed materials and finish are of a lesser quality than that approved and are not in keeping with the Rusholme Road Conservation Area. • The proposed solar photovoltaic panels to the eastern elevation are visually unappealing, cause glare onto neighbouring properties, which adversely affects neighbouring amenity.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Crivelli addressed the committee for local residents, raising concerns about privacy, the track, the bathroom window, solar panels and ownership.

What members discussed

Officers explained that the track was unchanged, privacy measures applied to the windows, the panels were within permitted development scope, and ownership was linked.

“In relation to the solar panels, it was noted that the extent of them was quite significant on the roof slope, and that they were quite large, however the panels would be within the scope of permitted development on dwelling houses as they were set in within the roof itself, therefore they would not rise above the roof. The Area Team Manager (West Team) also explained that they were matte in their finish, and therefore were intended to limit any glare from sunshine.”

“In relation to a question about the glare from the solar panels, the Area Team Manager (West Team) confirmed that there was a condition linked to permitted development regulations as to how the panels would look, however there were no conditions on the impacts from the panels on residential amenity. She added that as they were reliant on the sun as a key source for its functionality, it would be quite difficult to control and measure the impacts.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted six in favour and two against granting planning permission as set out in the report.

“RESOLVED – (6 for and 2 against) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information as set out in the late items of correspondence paper.”

Minutes