Appeal 6003937

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: P/2025/2634, 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: PL2/SM/104-00; PL2/SM/104-01; PL2/SM/104- 02; PL2/SM/104-03; PL2/SM/104-04.

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.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Strategy Plan Ref: PL2/SM/104-01 [name], accompanying the application in respect of [site address] , [postcode] .

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached property on the south east side of [address], on a corner plot and with a side return to [address]. It is situated within a predominantly residential area. Although mainly semi-detached properties along [address], there is variety in the street scene in terms of house designs and spacing between properties. The appeal property benefits from confirmation under a recent prior approval application with the Council’s Ref: PA/2025/2577 that a ground floor rear extension of some 6m in depth would not require prior approval.

The proposed extension is for a single storey side extension under a part hipped roof. It would be just over 3m in width and extend to the side boundary along [address]. It would extend the full length of the house and most of the extended length allowed for under the rear extension referenced above.

In undertaking my assessment, I have had full regard to the guidelines set out in the [name] and [name]: Part A5 [name] (SPD). Although very slightly wider than half the width of the existing property, the modest eaves height and roof form would ensure that the proposed extension would appear subordinate to the existing property. Furthermore, and although designed to be in line with the front elevation of the existing dwelling, it would be set back behind the projecting porch and front bay which would ensure that the proposed side extension would not appear over dominant in relation to the scale and proportions of the existing property.

The extension would be built up to the side boundary but given the corner location there would be no terracing effect. The proposal would also not extend the full length of the permitted rear extension. Although it would be a long addition along the side of the house, and built up to the side boundary, I consider that its modest scale and roof design would ensure that it would not appear as a dominant addition to the existing property. Given the variety of design and spacing in the street scene, it would also not appear as an overprominent addition in the locality. Its modest form, particularly in terms of its height and roof design would ensure that it would not be visually discordant in street scene views, including from along [address] as well as along [address].

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, CC2 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.

Conditions are required to ensure that the materials match the existing 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.

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