Rear extension eaves changes at 18 Park Drive, Acton, London W3

What was proposed

The application sought changes to the existing projection’s eaves so the rear extension could be retained, reinstating the original ridgeline and eaves.

“P/2025/0750 Address: Park Drive, Acton W3 8NA Ward: Chiswick Gunnersbury Proposal: Changes to the existing projection’s eaves to retain rear extension Application validated: 12/03/2025 This application is presented to Planning Committee following a request from Councillor Joanna Biddolph 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The proposal being considered under this application is to change the existing projection’s eaves to retain the rear extension, which has not been built according to the…”

“00854/18/P4 (P/2021/3272) Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) to allow for the changes to window details of planning permission 00854/18/P3 approved 28/06/2021 for erection of a single storey rear infill extension. Demolition of existing garage and erection of extended garage at rear of property. Approved: 05/10/2021 00854/18/P3 (P/2021/1543) Erection of a single storey rear infill extension.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey house in the Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area, with a single-storey outrigger, rear garden garage and approved rear dormer.

“SITE DESCRIPTION Figure 1 Site Location Plan 2.1 The application site is located on the western side of Park Drive and its rear back to Park Place Drive. The site is within Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area with an Article 4 Direction. The Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area named the property as a positive contributor to the Conservation Area.”

“The depth of the extension would be 3.35m, 3.1m wide and 2.6m tall (maximum height of 2.9m with roof light).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two retrospective applications for changes to the extension roof were refused, and an appeal against one refusal was dismissed.

“The site has not been built according to the approved drawings, and the applicant has applied for two retrospective planning applications (P/2023/2930 and P/2023/3696) to change of detail to the roof hip line of the single storey rear infill extension. Both applications were refused. The appeal for P/2023/3696 has also been dismissed (APP/F5540/D/24/3342048).”

“HISTORY 00854/18/P7 (P/2023/3696) Retrospective planning application for the change of detail to the roof hip line of the single storey rear infill extension Refused: 22/01/2024. Appeal dismissed: 19/06/2024 00854/18/P6 (P/2023/2930) Retrospective application to approved single storey rear extension’s roof to higher roof and fenestrational changes.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Two responses were received, objecting that the extension remained too high and that the fenestration issue had not been resolved.

“DETAILS OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The application is to change the existing projection’s eaves to retain the rear extension. Ridgeline length would be reinstated to original, below the level of the flat roof. The eaves would be reinstated, matching 16 Park Drive. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Five neighbouring properties were consulted on 13/03/2025. A site notice was posted on 28/03/2025. A press notice was posted on 20/03/2025.”

“It does not address the objective fact that they have built their infill extension to an excessive height and the outstanding fenestration issue.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor and two residents spoke against the application, while a councillor and the applicant’s co-owner spoke in support.

Committee discussion

Members heard that the eaves issue had been corrected, the height difference was negligible, and the application had to be considered as submitted.

“[name withheld] reminded members to decide purely on the Application before them as it stood. The focus was on the extension and height of the outbuilding as well as the raised ground. Less than 30 cm was permitted development and he had measured it at 17 cm, within the scope of permitted development.”

“During debate Cllr Dan Bowring acknowledged the very complex history of the Application while remembering the Committee could only look at what was before them. The case officer had clarified that the Application was compliant and had addressed concerns previously raised and so Cllr Bowring moved approval, seconded by Cllr Daanish Saeed. Members voted to approve the Application by a majority vote of 11 to 1.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved the application by a majority of 11 votes to 1, with no abstentions.

“Resolved – that planning permission for planning application P/2025/0750, changes to the existing projection’s eaves to retain rear extension, was approved subject to conditions.”

Minutes