Meeting: 17/07/2025 - Hillingdon Planning Committee (Item 69)
69 14 Coteford Close, Eastcote - 78399/APP/2024/564 
PDF 2 MB
Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension and single storey side extension. Conversion of extended house into 1 x 1-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with associated parking, landscaping and private amenity space. (revised plans 04.07.24)
Recommendation: Approval
Decision:
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report.
Minutes:
Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension and single storey side extension. Conversion of extended house into 1 x 1-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with associated parking, landscaping and private amenity space. (revised plans 04.07.24)
Officers presented the application noting that previous planning permission had been granted in February 2024 for identical extensions. It was confirmed that the key difference in the current application involved the conversion of the property into two flats including subdivision of the rear garden, landscaping and associated parking. It was noted that the works already undertaken at the application site were lawful as they related to the previously granted permission. Members heard that the inclusion of Condition 11 would ensure the site could not be converted into an HMO at a later date.
The application was considered acceptable and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.
The lead petitioner was not in attendance but the agent for the application addressed the Committee Members and thanked officers for their excellent and thorough report. It was noted that the applicant’s intention was for the development to remain as flats – he did not intend to convert it into an HMO in the future.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that the rear garden was for the use of both flats. Occupants of the first floor flat could access the garden via the side access.
Members enquired whether the proposed informative in relation to the development being sited in a critical drainage area could be replaced by an enforceable condition. In response, officers affirmed that an informative was deemed to be appropriate given the substantial rear garden, the scale of the development and the low risk of flooding.
Members raised no further objections or concerns. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report.