Overview
This case concerned a planning application for a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension at a semi-detached house on a prominent corner plot at 105 Church Road in Hayes.
The client approached us after the council had refused two earlier applications for similar extensions at the property. Rather than appealing those refusals, we advised that a revised design and a fresh planning application would offer a better prospect of success.
Following changes to the scale and form of the extensions, and the submission of a detailed Planning Statement, planning permission was granted.
The site and planning history
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house located on the corner of Church Road and Compton Road. It is not listed and is not within a conservation area. The house had previously been extended at roof level by way of a hip-to-gable conversion and rear dormer, which had been granted a certificate of lawfulness and implemented.
In 2021, the council refused two applications for part two-storey, part single-storey side and rear extensions. Although the second scheme reduced the width of the side extension, the council maintained that, when combined with the existing roof extensions, the proposals would appear excessive and would harm the character and appearance of the house and the street scene.
We have written before about how difficult it can be to get planning permission for domestic extensions in Hillingdon.
The revised proposal
The approved scheme was a further resubmission which responded directly to the council’s earlier concerns.
The side extension was reduced in scale and designed to be clearly subordinate to the original house. It was set back from the front elevation, limited to three metres in width, and designed with a hipped roof form. At first-floor level, the extension did not project beyond the rear wall of the original house, and the previously proposed first-floor rear element was removed entirely. Matching materials were proposed throughout.
The revised design significantly reduced bulk and visual impact, particularly when viewed from Compton Road, and ensured that the development sat comfortably within the generous side garden without appearing cramped or overdeveloped.
The planning considerations
In refusing the earlier schemes, the council had not objected in principle to extending the house, nor had it raised concerns about neighbour amenity, garden space or parking. The issue had consistently been one of character and appearance, particularly in light of the existing roof extensions and the property’s prominent corner position.
The Planning Statement accompanying the revised application addressed these points directly. It explained that the purpose of the relevant local plan policies was to prevent cumulative extensions from overwhelming the original house and harming the street scene, rather than to impose an absolute ban on two-storey side extensions to houses that had previously been extended at roof level.
The revised scheme was presented as a design improvement. The lowered, hipped roof form of the side extension was shown to soften the stark appearance created by the existing dormer and hip-to-gable conversion, reduce excessive vertical emphasis, and restore a better sense of balance to the building when viewed from the street.
The outcome
The council granted planning permission for the revised proposal.
The approval reflected the fact that the reduced scale, altered roof form and careful siting of the extensions overcame the objections raised in earlier refusals and resulted in a development that was subordinate, well-related to the host dwelling and compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
Why this case matters
This case illustrates the importance of responding constructively to previous refusals. Where the council’s concerns relate to design, scale or cumulative impact, a revised scheme supported by a clear and focused Planning Statement can often be a more effective route than pursuing an appeal.
It also demonstrates that policies discouraging certain forms of extension are not absolute, and that well-designed proposals which genuinely address the underlying planning concerns can still be acceptable.
This success follows on from another recent application that was granted following earlier refusals – read all about it here.
Even the best proposals can be refused planning permission. In such cases, you must consider a planning appeal. Check out our recent article on winning appeals in Hillingdon and our dedicated Hillingdon planning appeals page.
