London Borough of Hounslow appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Hounslow?
See which extension details inspectors criticised and which features supported no-harm findings in selected Hounslow appeals.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 212 of 286
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 94
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 117
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 205
- of 212 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Hounslow LPA (51.468493, −0.366095). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hounslow appeal findings
Hounslow extension design and street character
The selected examples lean more towards dismissals than the matched local set. Some extracts give only conclusions, not the analysis.
Counted against appeals
Hounslow extension concerns
A subservient front was not enough
At 27919, a stepped-back, narrow front was not enough when the extensions’ combined bulk, mass and design features harmed the area.
Building and street scene harm
At 19631, the conclusion was that the additions failed policies requiring no harm to the building’s character, appearance and general street scene.
Helped or needed
What helped Hounslow extensions
Existing side position helped
At 2536, the extension largely replicated the existing side position and remained subservient to the house despite missing the side-boundary set-in guideline.
No-harm conclusion without detail
At 6241, the selected extract says the side and rear extension would not harm the surrounding area or streetscene.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify combined bulk, mass or design features, not just the front?
- Does it explain harm to the building, street scene or both?
- Would your extension replicate its existing position and remain subservient to the house?
Appeal 6241 gives only a no-harm conclusion, not why the Inspector reached it. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
18 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey side and rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Given the above, I therefore find the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and streetscene. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan - [name] (2015-2030) (adopted 2015) which together seek to ensure proposals are well-designed and respect local context.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
1 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a 2 storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Furthermore, whilst it is noted that the proposed extension would not strictly accord with the SPD in terms of set in from the side boundary, the proposal would largely replicate the position of the existing extension and, for the reasons given above, would remain subservient in character and appearance to the host building. The preface to the SPD acknowledges that there will be instances where proposals do not accord ‘with the letter of the Guidelines’. In light of these reasons, I do not find that this particular proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the street scene or the short terrace of dwellings, with regards to scale, siting, character and appearance.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
10 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described a ‘2 storey side, part single storey rear, part 1st floor rear extension.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
From the front, the extensions would appear subservient, being stepped down from the ridge and back from the front. Its narrow width would also allow appreciation of the dwelling’s original design and form. This, in isolation, would not be a source of harm but, taken together, the bulk, mass and design features of the extensions would, for the above reasons, cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
22 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension and first-floor side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Policies SC7, CC1 and CC2 of the Local Plan which require, amongst other things, that alterations and additions do not harm the existing character and appearance of a building and the general street scene and seek to support high quality design that conserves and enhances the character of the area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
12 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part double storey side extension, part first floor rear extension, single storey rear extension and skylight in side roof slope.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The area around the appeal site comprises a mix of semi-detached houses and small terraces set back from the pavement edge behind front gardens and paved drives. Groups of houses are generally linked by garden walls with gates providing access along their side to their rear gardens. Above them the gap between houses at first floor level provide open views of the sky and trees to the rear and are wide enough that the side walls of houses are clearly visible from the road. Both these elements contribute to the character and appearance of the area. When viewed from the street, the roofscape around the appeal site appears relatively unaltered except for a corner house nearby, and the appeal property which has an existing side dormer.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1