The presenting officer (MR) outlined the facts of the case for the construction of a single storey side and rear extension at 10 Bowman's Lea, SE23 together with the conversion of the garage into a habitable space, replacement of the front garage
door with a window, replacement of first floor front elevation windows and alterations to the external landscaping. He discussed the site location and character, stating that officers did not have concerns of overdevelopment or overshadowing. MR stated that a Lawful Development Certificate (Proposed) has already been issued for the majority of the extension proposed and that only the corner infill which has been added in the application would be added.
Members asked for clarification regarding the corner infill and this was provided by MR.
The applicant, Simon Nolan, was asked by the chair to speak in favour of the application. He stated that he had been a resident for many years and wished to improve his family home. He mentioned the application history including the previously refused and appealed application which was disallowed. He stated that the works would be carried out responsibly to reduce noise impact on neighbours and that the officers report recognises that the proposal would cause no material harm to neighbour amenity.
SS asked the applicant how they would limit the hours of construction. The applicant advised he would discuss this with his architect. SS then asked the applicant if he had discussed this with his neighbours. The applicant advised that he initially consulted with the neighbours but they later objected.
The applicant left the table and OO invited any objectors to speak.
Jonathon Mitchell of 1 Haredon Close, Paul Bibby of 9 Bowman’s Lea and third objector came forward (who did not register to speak). Mr Bibby handed out a sketch showing overshadowing from the proposal to councillors.
Mr Mitchell stated that he supports his neighbour improving their family home, but objects to the proposal as he felt this would have a negative impact on his amenity. He stated that the extension would be 6 to 6.5m higher than the ground floor of his house. He argued that the wrap around the garden to the side would create a sense of enclosure that would be unacceptable as it would remove the only long distance view from his house. He referred to the planning inspector’s statement from the appeal APP/C5690/D/18/3197132. Mr Mitchell also objected to the large glass door which he said would have a direct view into his garden and that the proposed tree works would lead to a further loss of privacy.
Mr Bibby then took over for the remainder of the allotted five minutes. He stated his objection to the 3m wall directly next to their garden wall. He referred the members to his sketch, and stated that this application was almost identical to the one previously refused, with a height reduction of 20cm and stated that he felt this small reduction was insignificant, and that he felt that planning officers had made a ’U-turn’ in comparison with their decision on the previous application DC/17/104520. He quoted policy DM31 stating that residential extensions should be neighbourly and argued that in this respect that the proposed extension is unacceptable. Mr Bibby argued that planning officers had shown bias.
OO told the objector his time was up but Mr Bibby continued to conclude his argument briefly. OO asked the members if they had any questions.
AS stated that the sketch provided was inaccurate. He then stated that the permitted development was legally consented, not morally, and asked Mr Bibby to revoke his comment about the planning officers being bias.
Mr Bibby advised that his comment about planning officers had been misinterpreted.
AS then stated that the small corner infill proposed was insignificant in comparison with what was already permitted development, and that he understands the applicant wanting to expand their home. He also stated that planning committee should not be used to resolve neighbour disputes.
Mr Bibby questioned the members about the ‘U-turn’ he felt the planning officers had made. AS stated that there was no ‘U-turn’.
SP asked the presenting officer for clarification on exactly what part of the scheme could be completed under permitted development rights. MR clarified that the rear and side extension elements could both be completed lawfully. He stated that the sketch provided was inaccurate and that given what could be done as permitted development, the proposed corner infill would have no impact on either property.
JM asked for clarification regarding the access to daylight and sunlight. MR stated that it can’t be refused on these grounds as the Lawful Development Certificate for the side and rear extension has been issued.
Mr Bibby stated that he felt this was misleading. OO stated that the presenting officer would not mislead him.
SS asked the third objector at the table if she had anything to add. The third objector (who did not register to speak) stated that the proposed drawings show inaccurate boundary treatments and don’t account for the changing topography within the street. SS referred the objector back to the Lawful Development Certificate which already shows the majority of the scheme can be done without planning permission. Mr Bibby and the third objector still expressed their objection to the scheme.
OO asked members if there were any questions for the presenting officer.
Councillor Smith moved to accept the officer’s recommendation and approve planning permission.
Councillor Krupski seconded.
Members voted as follows:
For: Councillors Ogunbadwa (Chair), Penfold (Vice Chair), Smith, Mallory, Sheikh, Krupski, Gallagher and Moore.
RESOLVED: Vote to accept officer’s recommendation to grant planning
permission for DC/18/106334