Rear and side extensions at 5 The Meads, Cowley, Uxbridge

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey rear extension and double-storey side extensions on both sides, following garage demolition and chimney removal.

“Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description)”

Minutes

The site and surroundings

The site was in conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, where converting the property to an HMO would require planning permission.

“Officers introduced the application noting that the site lay within conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, which restricted permitted development rights for small HMOs. Members heard that the design complied with Council policy, being subordinate and well-scaled, and similar extensions existed nearby. A daylight and sunlight report confirmed no significant impact on neighbouring habitable rooms, particularly at No. 7, whose windows faced the proposed development.”

“In response to Members’ questions, it was explained that, since the property was located in an Article 4 area, the usual rule allowing up to six bedrooms without planning permission for an HMO did not apply. This meant that even if the property had fewer than six bedrooms, it still could not be converted into an HMO without submitting a planning application.”

Minutes

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for a single-storey side extension and rear extension to the garage was approved in 1987.

“AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 27254/B/87/03015 The Meads Cowley Uxbridge Erection of a single storey side extension and rear extension to garage. Decision: 06-04-1987Approved Hillingdon Planning Committee - PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5 of 6”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers supported approval because the design was subordinate and well-scaled, nearby extensions existed, and assessment found no significant neighbouring daylight or sunlight impact.

“Officers acknowledged the petitioner's photo submissions but noted that they lacked professional accuracy compared to the validated planning documents. It was emphasised that the daylight and sunlight assessment had been conducted by a qualified consultancy, adhering to BRE guidance, and had found no significant impact on neighbouring properties. The proposed extensions were deemed domestically scaled and compliant with design policy DM HD1, with limited visual intrusion.”

Minutes

Objections and support

Petitioners and the ward councillor raised concerns about scale, overshadowing, daylight, openness, street character and possible HMO use, while the applicant said it was a family home.

“Residents at number 7 had expressed concerns that the initial plans resembled an HMO-style property, which would not be in keeping with the street’s character. • They noted that the applicant was a property developer and believed the design was squeezed between neighbouring homes. • The planning report was criticised for focusing solely on number 2 The Meads, which was not a fair or representative comparison due to its unique location and spacious surroundings.”

“Ward Councillor Ahmad-Wallana was also present and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners. Councillor Ahmad-Wallana objected to the planning application, citing its negative impact on the neighbouring property at number 7. He argued that the proposed two-storey side extension would significantly reduce natural light to side- facing windows and garden areas, causing substantial overshadowing and harming the living conditions of the occupants at number 7.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The lead petitioner, the applicant and the ward councillor addressed the committee; the ward councillor spoke in support of the petitioners.

What members discussed

Members questioned shadowing, sunlight metrics, report amendments, photographs, HMO controls and construction access near the neighbouring property.

“Councillors raised concerns regarding the daylight and sunlight impact of the proposed development on neighbouring property number 7 and asked how many hours of direct sunlight the affected rooms received during winter and how the extension would alter that. Officers responded that the assessment followed BRE guidance using percentage-based metrics rather than direct sunlight hours and confirmed the development did not breach the 27% threshold for significant impact.”

“Members sought clarification on amendments to the daylight and sunlight report, questioning whether they were limited to typos or included changes to figures. It was explained that the amendments addressed drafting errors, such as references to unbuilt extensions, and confirmed the report was updated for transparency without affecting its conclusions.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded, then approved unanimously.

“Members raised no further concerns or questions. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes