Appeal 3371054
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a single storey wrap around, part first floor rear, two storey side, loft extensions (including construction of side & rear dormer and installation of sky light on the front roof slope), involving demolition of existing garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey wrap around, part first floor rear, two storey side, loft extensions (including construction of side & rear dormer and installation of sky light on the front roof slope), involving demolition of existing garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1155, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ART/2025/EXT112NHR/SPLP [name], ART/2025/EXT112NHR/PL01 [name], ART/2025/EXT112NHR/PL02 [name], ART/2025/EXT112NHR/PE [name] and ART/2025/EXT112NHR/FE [name].
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a detached two storey 20th century house, designed in a traditional style with a pyramid roof form. It is located on a street that demonstrates a wide variety of property types, scales and architectural expressions. This lends the local area a varied streetscape, with little cohesion in its street frontages. On the day of my site visit it was apparent that the roof, attached side garage with stores and some walls of the appeal dwelling had been removed, although no new construction was evident.
The proposal is for extensions that would significantly increase the living area of the appeal dwelling, particularly through the proposed addition of a two storey side extension and loft conversion with rear and side dormers. This side extension would have the same footprint as the now demolished side garage and stores, incorporating a new front main entrance to the appeal dwelling.
The first floor of the side extension would, be set well back from the front elevation of the appeal dwelling. At roof level the roof of the proposed side extension would be hipped with the existing pyramid roof form and would incorporate a traditionally formed side dormer with a hipped roof form. This dormer would be positioned well back from the front elevation.
The design guidance in the 8. The Hounslow Character, Sustainability and [name] A5 [name] (2021) (the SPD), advises in paragraph A535 that the roofs of extensions should be set down from the height of the original roof by 0.5 metres. However, this is design advice that should be applied to the circumstances and context. In this instance, due to the pyramid form of the existing roof, the matching height of the roof of the proposed extension, results in a more homogenous single roof form.
This would have the benefit of not looking like a series of roof parts that do not align. Consequently, the proposed extensions as whole would appear more coherent and appropriate to the larger scale of property that would result from the proposal. For these reasons, I find that proposal would accord with the SPD’s design objective of preventing extensions that harm the character of the house and local area.
Replacing the existing main front entrance to the appeal dwelling with windows and creating a new main entrance in the front of the proposed side extension would alter the appearance of the appeal dwelling, which is a traditionally designed and propertied house of little architectural note. The proposed new entrance would reflect the traditional design and proportions of the appeal dwelling and would not result in any significant harm to its character and appearance.
Overall, the proposed two storey extension would merge effectively with the style of the appeal dwelling and appear complementary to its original design and period. The set back of the first floor and the position of the side dormer would result in the proposed side extension appearing as recessive and secondary additions, which would result in it appearing as subordinate to the original appeal dwelling.
The neighbouring maisonettes at [address] sit significantly closer to the street than the appeal dwelling. This spatial relationship and the original gap between the appeal dwelling and this neighbouring property at first floor level, results in a clumsy and incongruous spatial relationship between the two.
The proposal would infill this gap at first and roof level, lessening the effect of this existing poor design relationship. This would result in the extended appeal dwelling appearing as a well-designed element within the street frontage and, as such, to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the local area.
For these reasons, the proposal would accord with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (2015). Amongst other matters these seek development, including by extension, to that is of high quality urban design and architecture and that creatively respond to the areas character, do not harm the existing character and appearance of the building and its context, complementing the original building and harmonising with neighbouring properties.
Section 05
Conditions
I have had regard to the Council’s suggested conditions should I allow this appeal. I have not included the suggested condition regarding the future creation of openings in the side elevation, as there are no exceptional circumstances that have been brought to my attention that would justify the removal of any permitted development rights. There are therefore no planning reasons that would make such a condition necessary.
Along with the standard condition regarding the timing of implementation, in the interests of good design I have attached conditions requiring compliance with approved plans and matching materials.
Section 06
Conclusion
The appeal is allowed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3371054
- Application reference
- P/2025/1155
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hounslow
- Planning authority code
- E09000018
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 99 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 13 August 2025
- Valid date
- 13 August 2025
- Start date
- 19 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 17 October 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 78166
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21