COMMITTEE REPORT PROFORMA - London Borough of Hillingdon

B) Permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the
Officer’s report.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER
68 Mildred Avenue Erection of a rear extension 802/APP/2002/2178
Hayes
(retrospective application).
RESOLVED
A) That the application be Refused for the following reason:
The additional rear extension by reason of its overall size, height, siting and
length of projection is an overdominant and visually obtrusive form of
development in relation to the neighbouring properties and as such
constitute an un-neighbourly form of development, resulting in a material
loss of residential amenity. The rear extension is therefore contrary to
Policies BE15, BE19 and BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan and design principles A3, A4 and B3 of the Council’s
Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
B) That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct
the Borough Solicitor to issue an Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach
of planning control under delegated authority and to take all necessary
legal steps, to secure compliance, in respect of:
The unauthorised erection of an additional single storey rear extension at
68 Mildred Avenue, Hayes, Middlesex.
1. That the Notice shall require the following steps be taken to remedy this
breach of planning control:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
demolish the rear extension;
remove from the land all debris, rubble, roofing and all other
materials resulting from the demolition;
reinstate the land to garden.
2. That a period of three months be given for compliance with the terms of the
Enforcement Notice.
3. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice to be as follows:
(i)
The additional rear extension by reason of its overall size, height,
siting and length of projection is an overdominant and visually
obtrusive form of development in relation to the neighbouring
properties and as such constitute an un-neighbourly form of
development, resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The
rear extension is therefore contrary to Policies BE15, BE19 and
BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and
Hayes Planning Committee – 1 May 2003 Page 12
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS