Appeal 6003610

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side & rear extension including single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: P/2025/3334, 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: A25-78-SLP and A25-78-01.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] accompanying the application in respect of [site address] .

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area, and • Whether there would be adequate and safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the property.

The appeal property is a semi-detached property on the north east side of [address], a service road to residential properties, which runs parallel with [address] West, and within a predominantly residential area together with some commercial and retail uses.

The proposed extension includes for a two storey side extension together with a single storey rear extension across the full width of the extended property, and a part first floor rear extension.

In undertaking my assessment, I have had full regard to the guidelines set out in the [name] and [name]: Part A5 [name] (SPD). The single storey rear extension would be some 6 m in length following the demolition of the existing rear extension and therefore some three metres beyond the rear extension to the adjoining house at No 12. However, the appeal property already benefits from a recently approved prior approval for a 6 m deep rear extension under the Council’s ref: PA/2025/2901. Given the existence of this recently approved prior approval, together with the proposed single storey form with a flat roof of the proposal before me, I consider that the proposed rear extension would be acceptable in relation to the scale and massing of the existing house. Given its proposed form, it would also not materially detract from the neighbours’ living conditions, with particular reference to loss of outlook and amenity.

The two storey side extension would follow the demolition of the existing side garage. It would be built up to the front elevation of the existing property at ground floor but would be set back 1 m from the front elevation at first floor. There would be a hipped roof set down and inset from the main roof. Although the ground floor element would not be set back from the front elevation as recommended under the SPD, I consider that the modest width of the proposed side extension, its set back at first floor and the proposed roof form would, together, ensure that the proposed extension would appear subordinate to the existing property. Furthermore, the remaining gap to the side boundary together with the existing open gap at No 14 to its side boundary together with the different roof designs to the two properties would ensure that the two properties would continue to be read as two separate dwellings and that there would be no terracing effect.

The first floor rear addition would extend part way across the extended property but would be set well away from the common boundary with the adjoining property at No 12. It would also be set in from the full extent of the ground floor extension below. It would have a hipped roof set down from the main roof to follow the height of the roof form to the side extension. Notwithstanding the SPD guidelines, I consider that this element, particularly given its gap to the common boundary and roof form would not appear overly bulky or over dominant in relation to the scale and massing of the dwelling.

Taking the proposed extension together, comprising the single storey rear extension, the two storey side extension together with the first floor rear extension, I am satisfied that the scale and massing as well as detailed design including at roof level would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. There have been a variety of extensions and alterations undertaken in the local area, and in respecting the character and appearance of the existing building, I also consider that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the local area.

I have noted that the design would not fully meet each of the guidelines in the SPD, but I am satisfied that the proposal, taken as a whole, would respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. There would therefore be no conflict with Policies CC1 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high standard of design which respects the local context. In the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that there would be justification for an exception to be made to parts of the SPD, as noted above, particularly as it is my conclusion that the proposal would accord with the objectives of the SPD, as set out under its introduction, to respect the character of the existing house and of the local area.

There is an existing vehicular crossover at the property with hardstanding to the front and to the side leading to a single garage. The existing front door is to the side of the property. As with many of the properties with on-site parking in the local area, there is no defined pedestrian access, separate from the parking area. The proposal would relocate the main door to the house to the front of the house.

The Council has referred to Policy EC2 of its Local Plan requiring development to minimise impact on access and the public transport network and has specifically referred to criterion e) requiring proposals for vehicle crossovers to be consistent with the council’s adopted policy on vehicle crossovers. However, this proposal before me does not include for a new vehicle crossover and would continue to use the existing crossover. The Council has also referred to, but not provided to me, specific proposals in its residential crossover and off-street parking policy but as already set out the proposal before me does not include for a new vehicular access.

Moreover, the proposal would relocate the main door to the front of the property, and it would therefore be closer for pedestrians to access compared with the existing main door at the side of the property. There would also be a clear line of sight from the crossover to the repositioned front door. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of vehicular and pedestrian access to serve the extended property.

I conclude that the proposal would be satisfactory to provide adequate and safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwelling and that there would be no conflict with Policy EC2 of the Local Plan in this regard.

Conditions are required to ensure that the materials accord with the notes set out on the approved plans in order to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. The approved plans require to be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning. A Fire Safety Statement has been submitted with the application and should be adhered to, in order to protect the living conditions of the residents and in the interests of fire safety.

The Council has also proposed a condition to ensure that the extension would only be used for purposes ancillary to the existing dwelling and not as a separate dwelling. However, as the proposal before me is for an extension to the existing dwelling, as set out in the description of development, and there would be one proposed entrance and internal staircase, I do not consider that such a condition is necessary.

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