Appeal 3278722

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

A Certificate of Lawful Development for the erection of a single storey side extension to the house and a single storey outbuilding for storage use incidental to the house was granted by the Council in July 2021 (reference No. 00157/17/LAW2.

The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property situated at the end of a cul-de-sac within an established residential area. The triangular corner plot borders an area of open green space to the south. The existing dwelling features a pitched roof and a protruding double storey front gable which mirrors the other nearby properties located on corner plots except No.[address].

Section 4.4 of the ‘Residential Extension Guidelines’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that the height and width of side extensions should be proportionate and subordinate to the main dwelling with a separation of at least 1m from the main front wall of the house to avoid a terracing effect. The extension would project beyond the front elevation and fail to appear sufficiently subordinate to the host dwelling. Whilst the appellant states that a sufficient gap is retained between the proposed extension and side boundary and that the development would mimic the original staggered front elevation, it would appear a dominant and incongruous addition that would harm the form and character of the host property.

The development would be visually intrusive and would detract from the strong symmetrical character of the surrounding context. It would be prominent from the nearby footpath as well as to surrounding properties due to the conspicuous position of the appeal dwelling.

It is acknowledged that a single storey extension projecting beyond the front elevation has been erected at No.[address]. It constitutes somewhat of an anomaly within the built form at the end of the cul-de-sacs bordering the open green space. The proposal would further unbalance the original symmetry of the area and, in any case, it must be dealt with on its own merits and the fact that an extension has been constructed elsewhere is not, on its own, a sound reason to allow unacceptable development that conflicts with the SPD.

Given the above, the proposal would fail to adhere to the guidance set out in Section 4.4 of the ‘[name] and harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and streetscene. It would conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan- Volume One (2015-2030) which together seek to ensure proposals are well-designed and respect local context.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.