Appeal 3369911

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0754, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 02A.

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.

No additional windows or openings shall be formed in the north facing side elevation of the development hereby permitted.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with specific reference to outlook and light.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house that has a substantial single storey rear extension with a shallow mono-pitched roof and a timber framed lean-to beyond, there exists a blockwork wall along the boundary shared with no271 for the depth of the lean-to, beyond which is a pedestrian gate and then boundary fencing. This is partly visible from The Crossways, in particular through the vehicular entrance gate which leads into the rear garden area of no267 [address] which is owned by the appellant. It is not disputed that the existing structure/s are lawful and their presence comprise a material consideration which I give significant weight in the

Having regard to the depth of the existing structure, only a marginal increase in its depth and height is proposed by the replacement extension which would be of more substantial construction. Consequently, whilst I acknowledge that the scheme would exceed the 3.65m guideline set out within the [name], [name], I consider that no demonstrable harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, whilst it would difficult to argue that the proposed structure would be subordinate to the host dwelling I consider in this specific case that material considerations outweigh the Development Plan and specifically with regard to urban design and architecture, residential extensions and alterations.

[address] also has a single storey rear extension and open lean-to, albeit not of such a great depth as on the appeal site. However, the neighbouring garden is of a reasonable size and bearing in mind the presence of the high boundary treatment on the shared boundary and again taking into account the presence of the existing extensions, on balance I consider that there would be no demonstrable loss of outlook or light to the occupants of no271 caused by the proposal over and above the existing situation.

Again, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would far exceed the depth advocated by the SPD and, due to its limited height, I consider that there would not be an undue loss of light or outlook to or from this neighbouring property. I consider that the proposal complies with Policies SC7 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015 – 2030 which together expect development proposals to minimise harm to neighbouring residents, such as avoiding an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, outlook or by creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

The Council has suggested that in addition to the standard time limit condition, conditions should be imposed that require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and that materials should match the existing building. I consider these are appropriate in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the Council has also recommended that a condition be imposed preventing any windows from being constructed on the north flank elevation of the proposed extension in order to safeguard the amenities of no271 from overlooking which I also consider to be necessary.