Replacement five-bedroom home at 35 Brookdene Drive, Northwood

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing house and building a replacement two-storey five-bedroom home with parking, solar panels and other associated works.

“Proposal: Demolition of existing two-storey dwelling and erection of a replacement two-storey dwelling with solar panels, associated bin storage, parking, electric vehicle charging and air source heat pump. Installation of vehicular crossover and alterations to landscaping including hardstanding for driveway, soft landscaping and new boundary treatment and siting.”

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a two store y five-bedroom dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a detached two-storey house, garage, landscaped garden and protected oak tree within a residential street of varied detached homes.

“The surrounding area is residential, comprised primarily of single and double storey detached dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and ages. The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The site is not located within a conservation area or an area of special local character.”

“The application site is semi-rectangular in shape and is located at the T-junction of the Brookdene Drive cul-de-sac. Current development comprises a detached two-storey dwelling with a gable roof and a detached single-storey garage. The rear of the site consists of a landscaped garden containing several mature trees includin g a scheduled Oak Tree protected under TPO 16.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier proposal for demolishing the existing dwelling and constructing a replacement dwelling with associated works received an objection in January 2025.

“AAppendix 2: Relevant Planning History 44049/PRC/2024/21835 Brookdene Drive Northwood Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement dwelling with associated works Decision: 22-01-2025Objection Hillingdon Planning Committee - 4th September 2025 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 13 of 15”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the design, landscaping, neighbour relationships, living space, parking and highway effects acceptable, subject to conditions.

“The principle of the replacement dwelling is acceptable as it would continue to provide a large family dwelling house. Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing property exhibits some uniform features with the wider estate, this factor alone does not amount to the building being of such considerable value to warrant its protection from demolition. The building is not statutory or locally listed and is considered to be of limited historic value.”

“The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate scale and design and would appear visually sympathetic with the character and appearance of the street scene. The applicant has worked cooperatively with the Local Planning Authority and in response to officer feedback during processing of the application has provided a revised scheme including changes to the proposed landscaping and a reduction in height.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The petitioner presented objections, while the applicant supported the proposal as a policy-compliant, carefully designed and sustainable self-built home.

What members debated

Members questioned the single parking space, protection of the garage from separate residential use, HMO restrictions and the absence of planning grounds to refuse.

“Members queried whether the condition preventing the garage from being used as a separate family dwelling was sufficiently robust and suggested the inclusion of restrictions on water and toilet facilities. Officers advised that the condition was considered strong and clearly stated that the garage cannot be used as a living room, bedroom, kitchen, or separate unit of accommodation. Access to the garage would be through the main dwelling.”

“Members questioned whether planning legislation allowed for a minimum parking requirement. It was acknowledged that while the property size suggested more parking should be provided, there were no planning grounds to refuse the application based solely on parking provision. Existing conditions may be lost if the application were refused and subsequently approved on appeal.”

Minutes

The committee vote

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

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

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved…”

Minutes