Development proposed is: the demolition of the existing front entrance porch; the construction of a new front entrance porch/ground floor front elevation to align with the existing front porch of 81 Jersey Road; the existing main roof extended towards No 81 Jersey Road with a new rear dormer and a Juliet balcony; new ground floor rear elevation bi-folding/sliding doors; the replacement of the existing rear conservatory with a new single storey rear extension to occupy the same footprint as the existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3195708 79 Jersey Road, Hounslow TW5 0TW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Ms Vimmi Malhotra against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00647/79/P5 was refused by notice dated 21 November 2017.  The development proposed is: the demolition of the existing front entrance porch; the construction of a new front entrance porch/ground floor front elevation to align with the existing front porch of 81 Jersey Road; the existing main roof extended towards No 81 Jersey Road with a new rear dormer and a Juliet balcony; new ground floor rear elevation bi-folding/sliding doors; the replacement of the existing rear conservatory with a new single storey rear extension to occupy the same footprint as the existing conservatory; and a new outbuilding, ancillary to the main house, located adjacent to the rear boundary of the rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The Council cited its 2003 Supplementary Planning Guidance Residential Extension Guidelines in its decision notice. I understand that this was superseded on 20 December 2017, well before the appeal was submitted, by a new Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) of the same name. As this is the up-to-date document, I will refer to it in this decision. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the house and the local area. Reasons 4. This part of Jersey Road has houses on one side and a more open space on the other, in the form of a football ground. The houses here are of varied architecture, generally built close together with many having been effectively joined together by extensions. No 79 is one of these, described by the Council as a semi-detached house, it has been extended right up to a side extension at the next house, No 81, at both ground and first floor levels. It is only set apart at roof level, by its hipped roof next to No 81’s gable. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3195708 2 5. The proposal includes several elements, most notably a hip to gable roof extension, a rear box dormer window structure, a front ground floor extension and a rear extension. The Council raises no objection to a proposed outbuilding, subject to a condition restricting its use, or to a proposed rear extension. 6. The SPD advises that hip to gable changes on semi-detached houses will normally be refused because they would imbalance the appearance of the pair. Changing the hip to a gable here would remove the clearest remaining element distinguishing the original pair of houses from others in the row, eroding its character by effectively joining it to the roof of No 81, making it look much more like part of a terrace. 7. I recognise that there is a wide variety of architecture here, including some semi-detached houses which have become unbalanced due to extensions, but Nos 77 and 79 form an attractive, well detailed pair. Although both have already been extended to the side, they have maintained their basic form, style and balance. The proposal would disrupt this. It may be, as stated by the appellant, that No 81’s gable was added without planning permission, but I have no details of that or any other similar cases and must consider this appeal on its own merits in light of current circumstances. 8. The SPD also advises that the Council will normally refuse dormer roof extensions that would be as wide as the house and create the appearance of a large box. The proposed box dormer would stretch almost the full width of the roof and take up almost all of the rear roof slope, dominating the appearance of the house as seen from neighbouring properties. I saw no comparable dormer structures in the local area. The combination of the hip to gable extension and the dormer extension would create a bulky structure which would be out of character with the house and the area. 9. Turning to the front extension, the SPD says that planning permission will usually be refused for porches that extend sideways and are linked to a side extension or attached to the bay window. No 79 currently has a small front porch which sits next to a feature bay window. The proposed front extension here would replace this with a larger structure, bridging the space between the bay and a ground floor front extension at No 81. Although this would conflict with the advice of the SPD, the existence of an almost identical extension next door at No 81 means that this minor extension would fit well into the existing built form, causing no harm to local character and appearance. 10. I conclude that the proposed roof extensions would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and the local area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 and the SPD, to support high quality architecture, to create attractive, distinctive and liveable places and to support the extension of residential properties where these do not result in harm to the built environment. 11. The proposed rear extension would sit on the footprint of an existing conservatory. Although it would be somewhat taller than the conservatory and located close to the boundary with No 77, its hipped roof would slope sharply away from that property, limiting its impact on light and outlook. No 77 would retain a largely open, southerly rear aspect. I note objectors’ concerns about Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3195708 3 the potential for No 79 to be sub-divided into separate dwellings or to be used as a housing multiple occupation. This application is for the extension of a single dwellinghouse, however, and I have considered it on that basis. 12. I recognise the appellant’s reasonable wish to extend her home to meet her family’s needs. I do not, however, consider this to be sufficient reason to override my concerns regarding the main issue. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR