Guest house extensions at 42 Pield Heath Road, Hillingdon

What was proposed

The application proposed a first-floor rear extension and a single-storey rear infill extension to an existing guest house, creating one additional guest bedroom and an accessible room.

“Proposal: Proposed first-floor rear extension to create additional rooms and a single -storey rear infill extension to create an accessible room (amended drawings)”

“This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a first-floor rear extension and single-storey rear infill extension to an existing guest house (Use Class C1), together with associated internal alterations. The proposal would provide an acce ssible ground-floor guest room with a guest room at first floor level and result in a net increase of one additional guest bedroom.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a two-storey guest house with front parking, near commercial and residential properties, and lies in an air quality and drainage risk area.

“The development site is located on the north side of Pield Heath Road. The site comprises a two -storey building which is currently used as a guest house. The building has been finished in brick and hung tiles. In terms of style, it is low level and resembles an extended chalet bungalow. The building is well set back from the road, and its frontage comprises off road parking. The property benefits from single storey rear extensions.”

“To the immediate west of the site is 44 Pield Heath Road, which comprises a single storey, flat roofed, warehouse style building with rear service yard. To the east of the site is 40 Pield Heath Road a two-storey semi-detached property. The remaining area surrounding the site is predominantly residential with the exception of a small number of commercial uses. To the rear of the site are semi-detached dwellings which make up Newlyn Close.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous, larger scheme was refused for design, neighbour and tree concerns; the current proposal removed the outbuildings and part of the first-floor extension.

“The application is a re-submission of a previously refused scheme under reference 17611/APP/2025/2884 dated 20 -01-26 for the ‘Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor rear extensions, alterations to roof form including a new rear dormer extension. Erection of a single storey rear outbuilding structure and a single storey front outbuilding structure’. The application was refused for the following reasons:”

“This current application has been amended to remove the outbuilding structures and part of the first -floor rear extension. Only the ground floor rear infill extension and part first floor rear extension is retained within this submission.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised proposal was considered acceptable in principle and would not cause unacceptable harm to design, neighbours, highways, trees, biodiversity or drainage.

“The development is considered acceptable in principle and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, trees, biodiversity or drainage. The proposal would also support the continued operation and improvement of existing visitor accommodation within the Borough.”

“The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highway Authority accepted the proposal, citing existing parking, controlled surrounding roads, limited extra accommodation and sustainable transport opportunities.

“The Highway Authority considers the proposal acceptable from a transport perspective, noting that the existing guest house benefits from a large forecourt parking area with space for around 12 vehicles and a wide vehicular access, which is sufficient to ac commodate the small increase in guest rooms.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

A petition and individual objections raised concerns about traffic, parking, safety, noise, privacy, visual impact, pollution, anti-social behaviour and the use of the property.

“III. Loss of Privacy Neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.35 of this report. IV. Visual Intrusion and Overdominance Neighbouring amenity has been discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.35 of this report. V. Anti-social Behaviour The development is not considered to cause an…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The lead petitioner addressed the committee, while the applicant and agent were not present.

Members’ debate

Members discussed parking, overlooking, visual impact, traffic, emergency access and the changes from the refused scheme, while officers supported proportionate mitigation.

“Members thanked the petitioner for their detailed presentation and referred to visual material submitted in support of the objections. Members enquired whether there were comparable examples of similar first-floor extensions within the surrounding area. Officers acknowledged the effort that had been made by the petitioner in preparing the images but advised that the images presented did not constitute a verified representation of the proposed development.”

“Members asked what changes had been made to the proposal that gave officers confidence that the concerns underpinning the previous refusal had now been addressed. Officers advised that the earlier scheme had included first-floor extensions to both sides of the rear elevation, resulting in unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

The vote

The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

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

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved, with a parking layout and management plan suggested as a possible condition to address parking concerns.

“Members observed that the Committee's ability to raise objections on highway grounds was constrained by the planning history of the site and previous decisions. Members considered that the proposed Parking Layout and Management Plan represented a proportionate means of addressing the parking concerns raised whilst delivering…”

Minutes