Appeal 6001843

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and, • if there is any harm identified under the first main issue, whether such harm is outweighed by the personal circumstances put forward by the appellant.

The appeal site is a two-storey, end-of-terrace, brick built dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The dwelling is set back from the front boundary and is also set in from the side boundary to [address], which affords a sense of spaciousness at the corner. This space, in addition to the greenery of the nearby street trees, positively contributes to an attractive residential environment at the entrance into [address].

An appeal1 (the previous appeal) was dismissed for a similar, two-storey side extension on the site because the Inspector found harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme subject to the previous appeal differed from this scheme in that there was no set back to the first floor and the roof did not have a hipped form.

The appeal property has a number of existing extensions and the hipped main roof end has previously been removed, with the ridge extended to form a new end gable wall. 1 Planning Inspectorate reference: APP/F5540/D/25/3360375. Dated 13 June 2025.

Surrounding streets comprise short terraces of a similar scale. Whilst some are from different periods and of varied designs, common features such as projecting two-storey bay windows add a degree of uniformity to the area.

The proposed development is for a two-storey side extension, set back from the front building line, with its flank wall immediately behind the boundary to [address]. The first floor of the extension would be set back on all sides, behind a small apron of pitched roof between ground and first floor. The proposed extension would have a hipped roof, set against the end gable of the host dwelling.

Due to its height and extent of brickwork, in combination with its very close proximity to the side boundary, the side extension would appear as a cramped addition which, in combination with previous alterations to the roof of the dwelling, would reduce the spacious quality of the corner plot, to the detriment of the street scene.

Whilst the set back first floor and hipped roof would reduce the bulk of the extension at the upper levels, it would not reduce the impact of the proposals to an acceptable degree, and would result in a built form which would appear contrived. Thus, consistent with the Inspector’s findings in the previous appeal, I find the scheme before me would, therefore, harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The proposed development would be contrary to advice in [name] Guidelines2 (the SPD), 2024, which advises that two-storey side extensions for end of terrace houses should be set back at least 1m from side boundaries.

For these reasons, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policies SC7, CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030, (the Local Plan) adopted 2015. Taken together these seek to deliver high quality design, which maintains the character of the general street scene and responds sensitively to an area’s character. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure developments are well designed and sympathetic to local character.

It has been drawn to my attention that a member of the appellant’s family has evolving mobility requirements. The appellant has indicated that the proposal would provide additional accommodation at the ground floor that would meet the comfort and accessibility needs of that family member. I have no reason to doubt that this would be the case and that, in this regard, the proposal has the potential to be beneficial to the family member concerned. This is a personal circumstance to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal.

However, the proposal is not just for improvements to access and accommodation at the ground floor, and it is clear some of the accommodation would go beyond the requirements of the family member. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that suitable access and accommodation for the specified family member could not 2 Full title: [name], Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document: Part A5 [name], 2024. be provided through a scheme that is more sympathetic to local character and appearance. There is an extant planning permission3 for the site which includes the same level of accommodation at ground floor level for such a family member, which weighs against the proposed development.

In weighing the personal circumstances in the balance, this has to be considered against the harmful effect that the development would have on the character and appearance of the area. As such, these do not amount to a material consideration of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the primacy of, and conflict found with, the

The appellant has drawn attention to the personal connections they have with the appeal dwelling and the locality, and that the proposal would provide improved living accommodation for them. Nevertheless, this would be a private benefit to a single household and, again, does not justify the identified harm.

In coming to this conclusion, I have given due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other two-storey side extensions in the vicinity. I have not been provided with full details of each case; however, it is noted that they all pre-date the adoption of the [name] and one predates the adoption of the current Local Plan. Those decisions were, therefore, made in a different policy context and I attached limited weight to them as comparators.

No objections were received in response to the application and no issues have been raised regarding impacts on neighbour’s living conditions or on trees. However, these are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and does not diminish the harm that I have found under the first main issue.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.