Householder roof and rear extensions at 74 St George's Drive, Ickenham

What was proposed

The application sought a rear extension, roof conversion with dormers, garage roof changes, chimney removal and an enlarged raised patio.

“Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension, alteration to the roof of the existing single storey garage, conversion of the main roof to habitable accommodation comprising of 2 x side dormers and hip -to-gable extension to the rear, demolition of existing chimney, and expansion of raised patio area to the rear of the property (Part Retrospective)”

“This application seeks part-retrospective planning permission for the construction of householder additions to No. St. George ’s Drive, Ickenham, namely a single storey rear extension and conversion of the roof to habitable accommodation, including dormers to both sides and a hip-to-gable extension to the rear.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached bungalow in a residential area, with a garage, front parking, rear garden and neighbouring homes on different sides.

“The application site comprises a detached, single storey residential bungalow located on the south ern side of St. George’s Drive, close to the junction with Copthall Road West . The property is of brick construction with a hipped tile roof, and is characterised by a feature gable projection to the front elevation. The property benefits from an existing single garage to one side and single storey extension to part of the rear, both of which have flat roofs.”

“The site lies within a residential area, with St. George’s Drive characterised by a mixture of single and two storey detached dwellings. The neighbouring property to the west, no. 72, is also a bungalow. To the east, the application site borders onto the gardens of properties facing onto Copthall Road West, which are two storey and either semi -detached or detached. The gardens of these properties are notably shallower, at approximately 9 to 10m in depth.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and works

Earlier permissions allowed a similar rear extension and roof conversion, while some works had started and differed from the approved plans.

“As mentioned, it is material to note that both a Certificate of Lawfulness (ref: 79535/APP/2025/1632 ) – for the conversion of the roof space to habitable use, including dormers to both side elevations and hip-to-gable extension to the rear – and a prior approval application (ref: 79535/APP/2025/1625) – for the construction of a single storey rear extension of 4m depth and 2.6m height – have been previously granted at the site.”

“- Enlargement of the size of the west-facing dormer, so that it reflects the box design of the east facing dormer. - To the rear, the dormers are no longer set in from the gable edge of the roof, and include an additional window. - Increased height of the rear extension by approximately 0.25m.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would not cause materially greater harm to the area, neighbours, parking, biodiversity or flood risk, subject to conditions.

“With consideration given to what has already been granted, i.e. can already be built without requiring planning permission under the provisions of Permitted Development, the proposal is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning policies and would not give rise to any materially greater harm to the character and appearance of the area or neighbour amenity, beyond what can already be achieved.”

“Taking all relevant matters into account and giving due regard to local residents’ objections (including the petition s against the application), it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. The planning application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The lead petitioner addressed the committee, an agent supported approval, and a Ward Councillor requested refusal or a site visit.

What members discussed

Members discussed overlooking, ground levels, the 45-degree relationship, fallback permissions, contamination, conditions and the consequences of refusing permission.

“Members asked about the impact of photographs demonstrating overlooking into neighbouring properties. Officers noted that the image had been taken from a first-floor window. A degree of mutual overlooking already existed and would remain under permitted development. Officers did not consider the overlooking significant enough to warrant refusal.”

“Members asked about ensuring conditions had been met, and processes for if this were not the case. The Council did not routinely inspect all conditions and relied on public reporting. There was an active enforcement investigation already in place and if conditions were breached, enforcement action may follow.”

Minutes

The vote

Officers’ recommendation, subject to additional conditions, was moved, seconded and agreed by the committee.

“Members acknowledged residents’ concerns but noted the risk of losing conditions if the application was refused and appealed and so supported approval subject to the strengthened conditions.”

“Officers’ recommendations, subject to additional conditions were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved, with conditions covering unlawful works, screening, windows, roof access, drainage and other matters.

“Conditions 1. COM4AAccordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall be completed and retained in complete accordance with the details contained in the planning application hereby approved and plan numbers: PP-14597417v1 PA8HR-01 = Sheet No:002 dated 10.03.26 unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise first agrees in writing.”

“Notwithstanding the approved plans, within 2 months of the date of this permission, details of privacy screening (wall/fence) to be installed along the perimeter of the raised patio shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the height (minimum 1.7m above patio level), design, materials and degree of obscurity of the screening, and its relationship to neighbouring boundaries.”

Officer report