Planning application · Hillingdon
13746/APP/2025/2924.
Full / Other Planning at 61 WARREN ROAD ICKENHAM, received 20 Nov 2025 — refused on 10 Feb 2026 (delegated, Christopher Lamb).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHillingdon profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Feb 2026
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
1
Conditions
attached to the decision
9
Documents
9 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Hillingdon planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Retention of roof lights, in breach of Condition 2 (ref.13746/APP/2014/845 date 12/05/14, appeal ref. APP/R5510/D/14/2220009). Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for an Existing Development)
Reference
13746/APP/2025/2924
Type
Planning Application
Applicant
Not recorded
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
20 Nov 2025
Validated
16 Dec 2025
Target date
10 Feb 2026
Decision date
10 Feb 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refusal
Council register
Reference
13746/APP/2025/2924
Type
Planning Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Not recorded
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
20 Nov 2025
Validated
16 Dec 2025
Target date
10 Feb 2026
Decision date
10 Feb 2026
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Refusal
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Hillingdon portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 10 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Christopher Lamb — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
20 Nov 2025
Application received
16 Dec 2025
Application validated
10 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
10 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Lamb
20 Nov 2025
Application received
16 Dec 2025
Application validated
10 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
10 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Lamb
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the existing development described constitutes a breach
of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 13746/APP/2014/845, allowed at appeal under appeal ref.
APP/R5510/D/14/2220009. As such, it does not constitute Lawful Development under Sections 171B
and 191 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 191 as amended by Section 10 of the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991, as the Applicant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that,
carried out alongside the construction of the extensions, the roof lights were installed over 10 years
from the submission of this application - the relevant time period in this instance. The described
development would therefore remain liable to enforcement action, and thereby unlawful.
This determination is based on your submitted plans. All measurements are taken from existing ground level.
1
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the existing development described constitutes a breach
of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 13746/APP/2014/845, allowed at appeal under appeal ref.
APP/R5510/D/14/2220009. As such, it does not constitute Lawful Development under Sections 171B
and 191 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 191 as amended by Section 10 of the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991, as the Applicant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that,
carried out alongside the construction of the extensions, the roof lights were installed over 10 years
from the submission of this application - the relevant time period in this instance. The described
development would therefore remain liable to enforcement action, and thereby unlawful.
This determination is based on your submitted plans. All measurements are taken from existing ground level.
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant not recorded
The council record carries no applicant name.
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant not recorded
The council record carries no applicant name.
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.