Appeal 3367558

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a front garage conversion and front extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0569, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan dated 16 February 2025; AH 735 01 Existing and Proposed Block Plan; AH 735 02 [name] and [name]; AH 735 03 [name] and [name]; AH 735 04 [name]; AH 735 05 Section Details; AH 735 06 Section A-A.

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

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal which replace a front door with a larger window to the front elevation of the extension and introduce an internal door between the garage conversion and dwelling. These amended plans would not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change to the proposed development and as such, accepting them would not cause prejudice to any of the parties. I have therefore based my recommendation on the amended plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal dwelling is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on an access road set back from the A312 [address]. The area is primarily residential with a small number of shops and services and some open green space near to the appeal dwelling. On my site visit I observed that many dwellings have been altered and extended which contributes to a street scene that is diverse in terms of appearance, style and design.

The proposed front extension is modest in size and would only increase the footprint of the appeal dwelling marginally. The design would align with the front porch, would incorporate a complementary forward sloping roof and would be finished in materials that would respect the appearance of the appeal dwelling. As such it would be a sympathetic addition to the front elevation. Furthermore, given the diverse appearance, style and design of the surrounding dwellings, it would not appear discordant within the street scene.

The Council contends that the proposal would conflict with some of the guidance in the [name], Sustainability and [name] – Part A5 [name] (2024) (SPD), namely that it would not be set back from the front elevation and would extend sideways from a porch. However, the development would be minor and for the reasons given would not unacceptably alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street. Consequently, it would generally accord with the overall thrust of the guidance in this particular instance.

Therefore, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would accord with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Volume One (2015) (LP) which require amongst other things, that development is of high quality design and responds to and maintains the character of the area.

The description of development clearly states that the proposed development is for a garage conversion and front extension and there is no proposal before me to subdivide the property for use as a separate planning unit. Therefore, the extension is unlikely to result in any significant increase in levels of activity beyond existing levels and the concerns relating to unacceptable disturbance to neighbouring properties are unsubstantiated. Given that a separate planning permission would be required for an alternative use the Council’s suggested condition in this respect is also unnecessary.

In addition, as the revised drawing provided with the appeal indicates that there would be no separate front door, it would accord with the guidance at Section 4 of the SPD. As a result, the extension would be accessed through the existing porch. This further persuades me that there would be no discernible change to activity at the host dwelling.

Thus, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to noise and disturbance. In that regard, it would comply with the amenity requirements in Policies SC7 and CC2 of the LP.

In addition to the standard time limit for commencement of the development, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty. The drawings indicate that brickwork to the front elevation and render to the side elevation would match the existing dwelling. However, they do not confirm the roof tile. Therefore, I have also imposed a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing dwelling in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.