Two-storey home extension at 63 Garston Crescent, Watford

What was proposed

The application proposed removing the rear extension, building a part ground- and first-floor extension, and converting the garage into living accommodation.

“Committee date Tuesday, 12th May 2026 Application reference Site address 26/00071/FULH 63, Garston Crescent, Watford, WD25 0LD Proposal Removal of existing single storey rear extension and erection of a part ground and first floor extension and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation.”

“The ground-floor part of the proposed part two-storey side/rear extension would have a shallow-pitch roof design with the side wall following the angled west site boundary. The proposed ground-floor part would have a width of 3.45m at the front elevation, would project 3.5m beyond the rear wall of the main dwelling and would have a height of 2.8m at eaves and 3.17m at the highest point.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house beside extended and detached homes in a mainly residential area.

“The application site is a two-storey semi-detached property situated on the north side of Garston Crescent in Stanborough ward. The existing house has single-storey side and rear extensions.”

“The application property is attached to its semi-detached pair No 65 which is located to the east. The No 65 has been extended with a part two-storey side and rear extension. Adjacent to the west is the detached house of No 61 Garston Crescent which has a driveway and a garage adjacent to its east side boundary with the No 63.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions included a similar extension proposal in 2020, a front porch and garage, and a rear extension.

“Relevant site history/background information…”

“App Number Proposal Status Decision Date 20/00324/FULH Removal of existing single storey rear extension and erection of a part ground and first floor extension and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation. CPP 11.05.2020 83/00388/FUL Front porch and garage. COND 14.09.1983 75/00471/FUL Erection of single storey rear extension CPP 02.12.1975”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the design proportionate and sympathetic, with no unacceptable effect on the area or neighbouring properties.

“Taking into account the proportionate size and sympathetic design together with the context of immediate surroundings, the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the site or to the surrounding area and is, therefore, acceptable in terms of design, in accordance with the paragraphs 8.3.1, 8.5.1, 8.5.2 and 8.6.1 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) 2016 and the policies QD6.1, QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local…”

“Also, it will have no harmful impacts upon the visual amenities of the adjoining occupiers given the sufficient separation distance and the modest projection behind the rear elevation, in accordance with the paragraphs 8.4.1 and 8.4.3 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) 2016 and the policies QD6.1, QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The main issues were the extension’s scale and design and its effect on surrounding properties.

“(a) Scale and design (b) Impact on surrounding properties…”

“(a) Scale and design Policies QD6.1, QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 seek high quality design in all new development. Paragraph 8.2 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) 2016 states that extensions must respect the character and scale of the host building. Among other things, it states that an extension should complement the size, shape and character of the existing property and should normally be subordinate to it.”

Officer report

What people said

An objector raised concerns about occupancy, parking, highway obstruction and overdevelopment, while a supporter described the property as a family home needing more rooms.

Committee discussion

Members considered the design guidance, earlier permission, parking, highways, emergency access, future use and the character of nearby extensions.

“Councillor Williams thanked both previous speakers and informed the committee that he agreed with [name withheld] that the development was out of character with the existing neighbourhood and that aspects of the design went against the Residential Design Guide's guidance regarding extensions and conversions. He disagreed with officers and considered that those excessive breaches alone were sufficient grounds for refusal.”

“The Development Management Lead noted that the scale of the development did not amount to major development and therefore required no specific mitigation measures, and that keeping highways clear was a highways matter and not a reason to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee approved the application when it was put to a vote.

“On being put to the committee the application was approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions covering commencement, approved drawings, matching materials and preventing use of the flat roof as an outdoor space.

“That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:”

“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:”

Minutes