Issue - meetings

Part-retrospective: construction of single storey rear extension at 10 Gade Bank, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that part-retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was part-retrospective for construction of a single storey rear extension at 10 Gade Bank, Croxley Green, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates, but summarised both the recent planning history at the site and the scope of the application, as set out in the report.  Members were reminded that concerns about past or future use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) were not a material planning consideration in the assessment of the application.

Parish Councillor Andrew Gallagher (Croxley Green Parish Council) spoke on the application.

A local resident spoke against the application.

Comments made by speakers against the proposal included: previous use of the property as an HMO and previous changes made using permitted development rights had caused harm to the community; future use should be as a single dwelling house only and not multiple occupancy; the applicant was unwilling to contribute to road repairs which had been agreed to by other local householders; and there had been noise disruption to neighbours who should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their properties.

In responding to the speakers’ comments, the Planning Officer clarified that the application before the Committee related to the rear extension only.  Concerns about the use of the property as an HMO which had been raised during the consideration of the previous application (refused in November 2025) were not a material planning consideration in this application.   Officers had considered the potential for including a condition which restricted use to a single family dwelling; however, this had not been considered reasonable and compliant with the tests within the NPPF, as it was not reasonable to attach a condition which related to the use of the whole property to a permission for an extension.

The Planning Officer advised that following the refusal of the previous application the applicant was seeking to make alterations to the extension which addressed the reasons for refusal, principally: replacing the set of two doors and two windows in the rear elevation with a set of bi-folding doors, and replacing the white render to the external walls to match the existing property. 

The applicant had also shown an intent to make alterations to the internal layout of the property to restore it to use as a single dwelling house.  These included replacing the two ensuite bedrooms in the rear extension with a living and dining area; removal of the ensuite bathrooms to the upstairs bedrooms; reinstatement of a family bathroom; and replacement of the kitchen in the loft space with a walk-in wardrobe.  However, these changes did not form part of this application.

The Planning Officer reported that Condition C1 required the installation of the bi-folding doors and the application of the external pebbledash render to be completed within four months of the grant of permission, and confirmed that the existing enforcement case in relation to the unauthorised rear extension would remain open until officers were satisfied that the works had been completed in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126