Appeal 3318034

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front extension and porch, alterations to front and side elevation with front pitched roof at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 01214/59/P2, dated 26 October 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set within a formally laid out estate of largely similar properties. The Council’s concerns reflect the advice provided in its SPD1 on front extensions, such as proposed. For the reasons set out in the officer report on the application, the proposed extension is considered by the Council to be too large and would appear bulky and incongruous both in respect of the dwelling and street scene.

The Council acknowledges that a similar form of development has been carried out two doors away at No 55 but says that this was not granted planning permission. In its view, that has harmed the character and appearance of the local area, but I have not been told if any enforcement proceedings were ever instigated.

Whilst the Council has specifically mentioned No 55, I saw that similar forms of development as sought by the appellant appear on other properties within a short stone’s throw of the appeal site on the same side of the street at Nos 45, 1 [name] - Supplementary Planning Document - A Guide for Householders (2017) 47, 49, 61, 63, 65 & 67. There are other examples of such development in [address], which joins [address] almost opposite the appeal site.

Thus, the form of development proposed is not uncharacteristic of the immediate locality, and none of the other examples I saw appeared bulky or of poor design in relation to the street or host property. In this visual context the proposal would not appear incongruous, as suggested by the Council, but would sit harmoniously alongside other similar forms of development.

I conclude that the proposal would sit appropriately in its’ setting without harming the visual integrity of the host property or the street scene. The proposals are therefore compliant with those provisions of policies CC1, CC2 & CC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan (LP), which, in combination, are directed to ensure that development in the Borough should be of a high quality design, creating attractive places to live and, in respect of residential extensions, should maintain the character of the area.

The Council’s suggested conditions have been considered. A condition in respect of materials is imposed in the interests of visual amenity. For the avoidance of doubt it is also necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have considered the relevant provisions of the Council’s SPD, but I take the view that the proposed development would not ‘significantly change the appearance of house and street’. Moreover, the SPD represents guidance and its sometimes formulaic advice on form and design need not always be slavishly applied. I have therefore determined this appeal on its merits having particular regard to local character and appearance, as evident on the ground.

All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account, but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. Accordingly for the reasons provided above, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Ref SD59/PD 01 [name]; SD59/PD 02 [name]; SD59/PD 03 [name] & SD59/PD 04 [name]. 2 3