Application Details

Application Lookup:
21/00118/PRIEXT
Application Type:
Prior Approval: Larger Home Extension
Proposal:
Prior notification application for the construction of a single storey rear extension: The proposed extension will extend beyond the rear wall by 6.0m, The maximum height of the proposed extension from the natural ground level is 3.2m, The height at eaves level of the proposed extension measured from the natural ground level is 2.9m
Decision:
Prior Approval Refused
Agent:
Mr Haider Karim
Applicant:
Mr Navdeep Chandi
Location:
5 Walnut Tree Road, Dagenham, RM8 3JB
Ward:
Valence
Officer:
Kathryn McAllister
Received Date:
21-01-2021
Valid Date:
21-01-2021
Proposed Committee Date:
Decision Issued Date:
22-02-2021
Application Status:
Decision Issued
 

Documents

Document Type Description Thumbnail Download/View
Decision Notice Decision Notice Download
Officer Report Officer Report Sorry, no preview available Download
Site Location Plan Location-plan. Download
Application Form / Certificate of Ownership Application-form. Download
Plans / Drawings Rear-elevation Download
Plans / Drawings Proposed-ground-floor-plan Download
Plans / Drawings Existing-ground-floor-plan Download

Representations

Name Comment Thumbnail Date File
**REDACTED**
Dear Sir/Madam, We are the tenants at no.7 Walnut Tree Road and wish to make an objection to the proposed rear extension to our neighbouring property at no.5 However, we note with interest that the application has this time, been applied for under a different surname but by the same person applying??
We object to the proposed plan for the following reasons and points:
Two previous applications have been entered ie. 18/01715/Prior 6 and 18/02104 Prior 6 - both of which were refused. The two previous refusal reasons were stated under BP8 and BP 11 (loss of amenity to nearby premises in respect of daylight,sunlight,noise and disturbance. Just to re-iterate our concerns remain the same as the previous applications, which we presume you will have access to and we have further concerns as below:
The proposed rear extension will still deprive us of light to our sitting room. kitchen and also light to our patio area. We have a decking area to the back of our property (against the back of the house) and enjoy sitting out here as well as taking care of our garden. xxx, is of ill health (long covid causing extreme lung problems with exhaustion) and unfortunately, also suffers bouts of PTSD (British Army Veteran), who gets a lot of comfort and calm from the patio area and this is of great importance to us. We feel that the proposed extension will be overbearing. The first 3 metres of the proposed building will abut the boundary and right up to our decking area and therefore will create an atmosphere of being walled in and confined. We notice that the only entry/exit point to the rear of the house will be via patio doors abutting our boundary line - causing noise and disturbance as is so close. Further to this, the application states that the height to eaves are higher than the previous two declined applications. Though the new application plans show that the last 3 metres of the extension have been moved away from the boundary by 6 feet, we feel this will make little different from the light lost due to the natural direction of the light /sun to the rear of our house.
We hope you once again understand our reasons for objecting to the proposal and take them into consideration. Yours sincerely, 7 Walnut Tree Road. RM8 3JB
28-01-2021 20:25:49 N/A