Proposed works involves the replacement of a garage door with a traditionally proportioned timber window that replicates the detailing, glazing bars, and frame depth seen elsewhere within the mews

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by R Higgins BSc MRes Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007877 6 Caxton Mews, Hounslow, Brentford, TW8 8BN • 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 Baxter Tailford against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2025/3712. • The development proposed is described as “The proposed works involves the replacement of a garage door with a traditionally proportioned timber window that replicates the detailing, glazing bars, and frame depth seen elsewhere within the mews.”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of the garage into habitable room and replacement of the garage door with a timber window to the front of the house at 6 Caxton Mews, Brentford, TW8 8BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2025/3712, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no 6 Caxton Mews Planning Proposal – Dimensions. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the host dwelling and the Butts Conservation area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site lies within The Butts Conservation Area (CA), an area which derives its significance from its strong Georgian character. The CA appraisal identifies the predominant use of brown brick, traditional sash windows, panelled doors and dormers as key features that contribute to its special interest. Caxton Mews, where the appeal property is located, forms part of a 1970s infill development. The development was designed to sit sympathetically within the historic context. The CA appraisal recognises the buildings within Caxton Mews as Appeal Decision 6007877 2 positive contributors to the CA, reflecting their overall compatibility with the surrounding Georgian townscape. 5. The host dwelling is one of a small group of three-storey townhouses arranged around a compact square. While these dwellings generally share a consistent design, including internal ground floor garages, no 9 Caxton Mews exhibits a different arrangement, with a ground floor window in place of a garage door and a garage attached to the side of the property. Furthermore, nos 1 and 2 Caxton Mews also differ from the prevailing pattern, as they feature ground floor windows and no garages, although they are set apart from the main square by an archway. 6. The proposed development involves the conversion of the existing garage into a habitable room, including the replacement of the garage door with a front-facing window. The proposed window would reflect the established architectural language of both Caxton Mews and the wider conservation area. The proportions, materials and detailing would be consistent with the existing fenestration found on the host property and neighbouring dwellings. The change would therefore read as a modest and coherent alteration. Although the mews is broadly symmetrical in its frontage design, there is already some variation, including at no 9, and the proposed development would sit comfortably within this context, reflecting the design approach seen there and thereby preserving the established character of the mews. 7. Given the sympathetic design approach and the limited functional role of the existing garage, the proposal would not materially erode the character or appearance of the CA. I therefore find that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not result in harm to the significance of the CA. 8. I therefore find no conflict with Policies CC1, CC2, CC4 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan (2015) and the relevant policies of the London Plan and the national Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these specifically aim to ensure that development incorporates high-quality design that is appropriately styled for both the building and its surroundings. Furthermore, they seek to promote a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, enhance the local context, demonstrate a clear understanding of the area’s historic environment and heritage values, and preserve the character and appearance of conservation areas. Other Matters 9. During my site visit, it was evident that parking demand in the area is high. Many of the garages were obstructed by parked vehicles on the forecourt, strongly suggesting that they are not routinely used for parking. In addition, refuse and recycling bins were stored externally at several properties, indicating that the functional use of the ground-floor frontage already varies from the original design intention. 10. While the loss of a garage could theoretically intensify parking pressures, on-site observations indicate that the garage is not currently used for parking and that this is a common pattern across the mews. This is further supported by representations from neighbouring occupiers, several of whom raised no objection to the conversion of the space to habitable accommodation, with one specifically noting that the garages are generally too small to accommodate modern vehicles. As such, any additional impact on parking demand would be limited. Appeal Decision 6007877 3 Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time limit, I shall impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings which the development must accord with, in the interests of certainty and to provide clarity. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Rachel Higgins APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. T Law INSPECTOR