COUNCILLORS have, somewhat reluctantly, approved plans to extend a three-bedroom family home in Chafford Hundred – but warned a separate application would be required if the property is used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).
Members at a meeting on Tuesday ( 9 June) backed an officer recommendation to allow a single-storey rear extension and a two-storey side extension above the garage at the end-of-terrace house in Bull Close.
Several members of the newly-created committee, who have little experience of planning matters, had previously expressed concern about the plans as they fought an election campaign, said they felt frustrated having come up against the reality opf planning process.
The plans will create additional kitchen space on the ground floor, while the first-floor extension will add an extra ensuite bedroom and increase the size of an existing bedroom.
The application, submitted in January, was brought before the planning committee after concerns were raised by former councillors about the potential use and character of the property.
Planning officers said the extension would not harm neighbouring properties, adding it would not result in any “unacceptable overbearing impact”, particularly to the adjoining garage.
However, concerns over how the home is being used remain subject to a separate planning enforcement investigation. Complaints have been made that the property is operating as an Airbnb, with the outcome yet to be determined.
In a statement read to the committee, a neighbour claimed up to nine people had been staying at the address, leading to noise issues, blocked driveways and repeated police attendance.
“I want to object on behalf of myself and my neighbours,” the statement said. “It is already causing problems for residents.”
Some objectors also raised allegations about the nature of activity at the property, as well as concerns over rubbish and unsanitary waste being left outside.
Planning officers told councillors that any issues relating to HMO use would need to be considered separately through licensing processes, and could not be taken into account when determining the extension application.
Cllr Stephen Davies raised questions about the use of the building, but was advised the matter fell outside the scope of the planning decision.
Seven objections to the extension were received, but councillors, having received legal advice, voted in favour of the scheme.