Garage extension and conversion at 3 The Ridgeway, Acton, London W3

What was proposed

A side extension would enlarge the rear garage and convert it into a recreation room for uses incidental to the house.

“P/2025/0658 Address: The Ridgeway, W3 8LW Ward: Chiswick Gunnersbury Proposal: Erection of a single storey side extension to the existing single storey rear garage outbuilding with associated alterations and conversion from a residential garage to incidental residential use. Application Validated: March 2025 This application is presented to Planning Committee following a request from Councillor Joanna Biddolph.”

“Under assessment 4.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposed development is for the erection of a single storey side extension, measuring 3.94 metres deep with a 1.02 metre front minimum width, 1.84 metre rear maximum width, 2.92 metre maximum height and 2.88 metre eaves height. The proposed single storey side extension would have a chamfered side wall alignment, include a glazed single side door and double side window and have a shallow pitched roof.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a mid-terrace house with a uniform rear garage in the Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area and a controlled parking zone.

“Figure 1 Site Location Plan 2.1 The application site is No. The Ridgeway, a two storey mid-terrace house with a dual pitched roof (with a shared chimney stack, one rear roof light and overhanging front and rear eaves projections), a two storey front bay window, flat ground floor front door canopy and single storey rear outrigger with a hipped roof.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension would be modest, preserve the area’s character, and avoid harm to neighbours, access, safety or parking.

“The existing internal car parking space is not currently used by the existing residents for car parking, is not considered large enough or easily accessible to park and access a modern family car and therefore its removal would be acceptable in the context of the site’s public transport accessibility. The site is within Gunnersbury Estate Controlled Parking Zone.”

“CONCLUSION 10.1 The principle of extension to the existing outbuilding on this site is acceptable as there are similar developments within the surrounding area and the proposal is a modest addition. The proposal would not harm the neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the area. No change to pedestrian and highway safety or parking situation in the area. As such, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Two objections concerned a possible independent dwelling or HMO, parking loss, noise, enforcement and the relationship with the separate house extension application.

“The proposal would result in the loss of one private car parking space from within the existing rear garage. The outbuilding was no longer being used as a garage. The existing area does not meet the Council’s guidelines for a garage. Therefore, the proposal would not alter the existing parking arrangement and not result in additional on-street parking or parking stress in the area.”

“Therefore, the proposal would not alter the existing parking arrangement and not result in additional on-street parking or parking stress in the area. There is no need for a separate shower facility within the existing rear garage outbuilding due to its close proximity to the house.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor and a local resident spoke against the application, while another councillor spoke for it on behalf of the family.

What members considered

Members heard that the roof was above the eaves and that doors and windows were not the test for whether the outbuilding could be a dwelling.

“[name withheld] corrected two errors in the Committee report: firstly that the overall internal area of the extended outbuilding would be 16.82 square metres rather than the stated 20.96 square metres and secondly that the report incorrectly stated that the roof of the extension was below the eaves, when it was in fact above them, but the extension was set in by 0.85 metres, retaining the original leaves where they adjoined the public highway where they were most visible.”

“In response to questions from members [name withheld] confirmed that the position of doors and windows did not form part of the threshold for deciding whether the outbuilding was potentially a dwelling; the threshold was if it included primary residential facilities such as sleeping facilities and/or bathroom facilities and/or kitchen facilities, and had relatively easy or direct access independently.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members approved the application by 11 votes to none, with one abstention.

“During debate Cllr Tom Bruce fully acknowledged the concerns expressed by Cllr Biddolph and [name withheld] but the Committee could only decide on the Application before them as it stood. He referred to measures in place regarding planning enforcement in general and HMOs in particular. He accepted the officer’s recommendations that the Application was policy compliant and moved approval of the Application, seconded by Cllr Emma Siddhu.”

“For – 11 votes Against – None Abstained - 1”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted for the extension, alterations and incidental residential use, subject to conditions.

“Resolved – that planning permission for planning application P/2025/0658, erection of a single storey side extension to the existing single storey rear garage outbuilding with associated alterations and conversion from a residential garage to incidental residential use was approved subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Conditions on the use

The outbuilding must remain incidental to the house and cannot be used as a separate dwelling, for primary residential accommodation or for business purposes.

“Reason: In order to safeguard the appearance of the area. Compliance and restrictions - residential outbuilding use The existing detached single storey rear garage outbuilding and its single storey side extension hereby permitted shall be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house only at ‘No.”

Officer report