Erection of first floor side extension to the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2026 by Lisa Clark BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002062 28 Gould Road, Feltham, Hounslow, London TW14 8AB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Kashmir Mann against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2025/2176. • The development proposed is erection of first floor side extension to the house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have amended the description of the development in the banner heading above to that used on the decision notice and the appellant in his appeal statement. This is a more comprehensive description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal. 3. The appellant has requested that I consider changes which were not before the Council when it took its decision, and has provided rendered imagery1, which they contend are visualisations only and not to scale. These show the hipped roof originally sought to be replaced with a flat roof. I have considered these, taking into account the tests on Holborn Studios Ltd2. While the description of development would remain the same and the change in roof design would not lead to the scheme being substantially different, I am mindful that plans are not to scale. Given the width of the proposed side extension in plan, titled Appendix B, is shown to be wider than that shown on drawing 03, and without anything to the contrary, I consider it would be prejudicial to interested parties to accept them. I have therefore assessed the appeal on the basis of plans submitted to, and considered by, the Council. 4. There are discrepancies on the submitted plans from what I saw on site with regard to 30 Gould Road (No 30). Plans 01 and 03 show the appeal site (No 28) alongside its immediate neighbours (Nos 26 and 30). No 30 is shown to have only a bay window to the ground and first floors within the front elevation; however, I saw that it also contained a door to the ground floor and an additional window to the first floor. Furthermore, Plan 10 omits to show the windows I saw within the ground-floor flank elevation of No 28 to the reception room. 1 Email to Inspectorate dated 12 February 2026 inc. Appendix A and B 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) Appeal Decision 6002062 2 5. There are also discrepancies between the proposed floor plans and elevations. Plan 12 shows a window within the upper floor of the flank elevation; however, there is no window shown on Plan 11. Moreover, Plan 03 is titled Existing Front Elevation when it is a proposed plan. Despite the discrepancies, I am satisfied that I have seen the site context and my determination of the appeal on the basis of the plans listed on the Council would not prejudice any interested parties. Main Issue 6. The main issue is whether the proposal would affect the living conditions of existing occupants of No 30, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 7. No 28 is a semi-detached dwelling set within a predominantly residential area, which has a mix of typologies. I saw that while Gould Road had a mainly consistent building line, the exception to this was at No 30, where I saw that its front elevation was set behind the main rear elevation of No 28. 8. The upper flank elevation of No 28 is currently set off from the ground floor flank elevation. I saw that this would provide the occupants of No 30 with a fairly good degree of outlook and openness from the upper habitable room. The ground floor flank elevation of No 28 would, however, be partially visible from within the ground floor of No 30, and would likely restrict, in part, the outlook for the existing occupants at this level. However, its current height and its roof design would more than likely provide a degree of openness above. 9. I acknowledge that the appellant has gone to some length to address concerns raised by the Council following the previously refused scheme,3 and that the Council has no concerns with regard to the design of the proposal or indeed its relationship with the host property. However, the proposal would extend the flank elevation of No 28 outwards at the upper level closer to No 30, and extend it significantly to its front elevation. Even if the appellant currently owns both No 28 and No 30, this may not always be the case. Given the relationship between the properties, the proposal would result in an imposing flank elevation which would be visually intrusive from the main front habitable rooms of No 28, and would appear as an overbearing feature for its occupants. 10. The appellant has drawn my attention to the existence of nearby comparable extensions; however, they have not provided any address or the circumstances surrounding their presence. I did see that the adjoining property, No 26, appeared to have been extended to the side. However, even if the principle was accepted in that case, I saw that its relationship with its immediate neighbour was not similar to that between Nos 28 and 30. Its presence is therefore not comparable to the appeal before me. 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupants within No 28. Conflict would arise with Hounslow's Local Plan 2015-2030 Volume One, Policies CC2 and SC7, which collectively seek to ensure that development has a positive impact on the amenity of current and future residents, and provide adequate outlook and minimise overbearingness. 3 P/2025/1086 Appeal Decision 6002062 3 Other Matters 12. The absence of harm with regard to character and appearance of the host dwelling or streetscene are neutral matters in the overall planning balance, as this would be a likely requirement of a well-designed development. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Lisa Clark INSPECTOR