Agenda item

(Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement). The report seeks approval of revised Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) with respect to house extensions in the south Tottenham area.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement, which sought approval to adopt the Revised House Extensions in South Tottenham Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in place of the original House Extensions in South Tottenham SPD, which was adopted in October 2010.

There was agreement that the adoption of this document would help in controlling unauthorised house extensions whilst balancing this with the need to allow families to expand their homes to accommodate their families.

RESOLVED:

That approval be given to the adoption of the Revised House Extensions in South Tottenham Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in place of the original House Extensions in South Tottenham SPD, adopted in October 2010.

Alternative options considered

The recommended proposals are considered to meet the balance of residents and stakeholder’s concerns over extensions in South Tottenham; of both those that want greater freedom to build larger extensions with fewer restrictions on their use and appearance and those that want stronger restrictions on extensions and fewer extensions built.

There are a number of ways in which the Council could have granted greater freedom. It could, for instance, have considered permitting larger extensions, whether single storey or on two or more floors; however, this would have caused significant loss of amenity, particularly daylight, sunlight and privacy to neighbours and have lead to further loss of back garden space, which provides amenity, recreation space, food growing space and wildlife habitats.

If the Council had chosen not to insist on greater attention to detail of extensions, evidence from those built so far demonstrates that extensions would be built, which in many cases would not match the original house, increasing the loss of architectural unity and consistency of appearance of streets. This would lead to diminished property values and lack of acceptance of extensions from other residents living in the neighbourhood. It is worth nothing that the guidance reiterates that ‘potential applicants can always discuss particularly peculiar circumstances that lead them to consider extra large extensions acceptable in a pre-application enquiry’.

If instead the Council had sought to restrict extensions, there would not be a solution to the problem of overcrowding of large families within the capabilities of home owners to resolve the issue and the clear demand would not be met. This would continue social and health problems associated with overcrowding, further pressure for one off planning applications for extensions of all sorts, including rear extensions and the previously popular ‘grossly over scale dormers’, in all likelihood greater construction of extensions without or in contravention of planning permission and causing greater workload on the Council’s planning officers.

Alternatively the Council could have elected to not revise the SPD at all. This would have maintained existing restrictions on ‘Type 3’ extensions only being built in pairs, which many residents wanting to build such extensions are finding difficult to follow, the Council’s planning officers are finding it difficult to enforce and considered not to make significant difference to the impact on appearance and neighbour’s amenity compared with single extensions. The absence of greater emphasis on getting the details of extensions to match existing houses would perpetuate the problem of extensions not matching the existing house, which would diminish cross-community neighbourhood consensus in favour of the existing SPD.  Some details with additional emphasis in the revised SPD, such was the importance of strengthening foundations and improving fire safety, impact on the safety of residents. Without other revisions the SPD would also lack the increased emphasis that the extensions are not intended to facilitate conversions for flats or Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). 

Reasons for decision

For the detailed reasons given above and in the SPD itself, this revised version of the SPD is considered to improve the guidance on what forms of additional extensions would be acceptable.  The proposed revisions have been through a two stage consultation process with all local residents and the organisations that should be consulted and has been modified accordingly.  The revised SPD therefore now needs Adopting by the Cabinet for it to come into force in place of the existing SPD.