Appeal 6005156

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area and the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Taken together, Policies CC1, CC2, SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2031 (2015) (LP) seek to secure high quality design which responds to the context of the host property and area.

The Hounslow Character, Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (SPD) offers detailed design recommendations for how this should be achieved. This notes that single storey rear extensions should appear secondary to the original house and includes a maximum depth for an extension to a semi-detached home to 3.65 metres.

The appeal property, along with several other homes within this part of [address], benefit from existing single storey rear extensions. This has established a consistent rear building line which the proposed extension would unacceptably breach. When combined with the existing rear extension, the resulting structure would be of an excessive scale, which would appear discordant and out of character with the both the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. The cumulative depth would be at odds with the proportions of the original house, and it would not appear subordinate. Consequently, the proposal represents a disproportionate addition that would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The proposed extension, by way of its incongruous design, would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Consequently, overall, the scheme fails to comply with [name] CC1, CC2, SC7, the recommendations of the SPD and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed extension would sit on the shared boundary with the neighbouring property, No [address]. Both the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring home already benefit from existing single-storey rear extensions of a similar depth. Although the appeal site is at a slightly higher ground level than No 47, the height of the proposed extension would be limited by the proposed low-profile parapet roof, and it would only project around 3 metres beyond the neighbour’s existing structure. In view of this, I consider that the mass and bulk of the proposed extension would not result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure or appear overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property. Consequently, the proposal would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers.

The Council’s Officer report does not identify harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No.51 and I have no reason to disagree.

In view of the above, there would be no conflict with [name] CC2 and SC7 and the SPD which seek to protect the living conditions of existing residents.

I acknowledge that the proposed ground floor extension would provide a larger, more accessible living and dining area for the appellant’s elderly parents who require daily care. I recognise the clear need for improved accommodation to support their wellbeing. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the extension is the only reasonable means of securing this or that alternative internal reconfigurations have been explored. Therefore, I attach moderate weight to the need for additional space.

I have had regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights. I recognise that a refusal of planning permission would interfere with the appellant’s right to respect for their private and family life and their home. However, this right is qualified. In this case, the significant harm I have identified to the character of the host dwelling and area means that the protection of the public interest and the requirements of the development plan are overriding. I am satisfied that the dismissal of the appeal is a proportionate response and that the interference with the appellant’s rights is no more than is necessary to achieve the legitimate planning objective. Consequently, the personal circumstances in this case do not outweigh the significant harm identified.

[name] have found that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, this is outweighed by the significant harm it would have to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. No material considerations indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.