Appeal 6005449

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing permission was granted on appeal ([name]/F5540/D/24/3337288). The appeal decision refers to planning application reference 00061/8/P3 while the application form for this appeal proposal refers to reference P/2023/1566 instead. This change appears to be due to a new (or dual) referencing system adopted by the Council. The officers’ report makes it clear that both of these references relate to the previous appeal decision, condition 2 of which is the subject of this appeal.

I was not given access the appeal site at my site visit, but did see the situation from the street and from a neighbouring property, gaining enough information to assess the proposal.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cranford Village Conservation Area; and ii) The effect of the proposal on living conditions at neighbouring properties.

The Council’s Cranford Village Conservation Area Appraisal advises that most of the streets in this part of the conservation area contain well maintained, detached and semi-detached 1930s properties. [address] is a short residential cul-de-sac, lined on one side by a row of harmoniously designed and proportioned semi-detached houses with common features such as hipped roofs and full height front bays, and with various modest extensions and alterations. No 8 is typical of these, located on the turning head with a plot that widens to the rear. A flat roofed garage infills the gap between the main house and the side boundary at the front.

I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, even where that harm would be less than substantial.

The proposal is for a wrap-around side/rear extension including single storey flat roofed sections to the side/rear and rear, plus a 2 storey pitched roof side/rear element. The key differences between the previously approved scheme and this one are that: (i) the 2 storey section would be wider and deeper in plan; and (ii) the side/rear single storey section would be widened to closely follow the angled boundary, leaving no gap.

Taking the 2 storey element first, the Council’s Hounslow Character, Sustainability And Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document - Part A5 [name] (SPD) aims to ensure that the height, width and depth of 2 storey side and rear extensions are proportionate and subordinate to the dimensions of the main house - with an advised maximum projection of 2.5m beyond the back wall of the house. This revised proposal includes a larger rear projection of about 4m. The 2 storey element would also now project outward, beyond the existing 2 storey side wall.

Although the enlarged part of the 2 storey side/rear extension would be set well back from the street, the overall effect when seen in angled views from the head of the cul-de-sac would be an overly deep 2 storey structure. I note that the roof line would step down twice to try to minimise this effect, but the extended building would still be out of scale, character and proportion with the other, more moderately scaled houses on [address].

The SPD also advises that the width of single storey extensions should be less than half the width of the house and should be squared off rather than following angled boundaries. The proposed one storey elements would not follow either of these guidelines. Although the angled form and enlargement of the single storey side/rear extension would not be readily seen from the street, it would be seen from neighbouring properties. Taken together with the 2 storey element it would create a bulky overdevelopment of the plot, in conflict with the less intensive, more open, suburban character of [address].

The appellant accepts that there would be an increase in harm to the heritage asset, suggesting that this would only be to a modest degree compared to the 2024 appeal scheme. I agree that the amount of harm here would be minor and, in the terms of the Framework, less than substantial. This is notably different to the 2024 scheme, however, which that Inspector found would cause no harm to the conservation area.

I conclude that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, in conflict with the Framework and London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) policies CC1, CC4 and SC7, which aim to protect heritage assets, secure high quality design and support residential extensions that maintain the character of the area.

The Council’s concern here is that the proposal would reduce the natural light available to the kitchen at No 9 next door, which has a side facing window. That room also has extensive south facing glazing to the rear, however, so would continue to get good sunlight and daylight. The resident(s) of the adjoining house on the other side, No 7, raise concerns about a loss of light to their rear facing windows and rear garden. That property would also retain a largely open, sunny southerly aspect, however.

I conclude that the proposal would not unduly affect living conditions at neighbouring properties. It accords in this respect with LP policies CC2 and SC7, which aim to minimise harm to neighbouring residents.

Framework paragraph 215 says that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In general terms there are public benefits from the improvement of the housing stock, as suggested by LP policy SC7’s support for the extension and improvement of residential properties. In this case, however, I find no overriding benefit given that this is already a family sized dwelling with planning permission for a substantial extension and no evidence has been submitted to indicate any general need for dwellings of the size now proposed.

[name] see no objection in relation to the second main issue, my concerns regarding the impact on the conservation area are sufficient for me find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.