Front first floor window changed as Juliet balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008691 85 Maswell Park Crescent, Hounslow, TW3 2DS • 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 Mrs Manisha Kumari Singh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2025/3726. • The development proposed is front first floor window changed as Juliet balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of the proposed development above is taken from the application form. The Council, in its decision notice, described the proposed development as a part retrospective application for the existing flat roof to the bay window and installation of a Juliet Balcony on the front first floor. 3. As above, the application the subject of this appeal is part retrospective. I refer to the proposed development (as opposed to the development), below. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a tall two storey mid-terrace dwelling located along Maswell Park Crescent, close to its junction with Maswell Park Road. It is located in a predominantly residential area, largely characterised by the presence of two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. 6. The terrace within which the appeal dwelling is located is notable for its tall gable frontages and the presence of prominent ground floor bay windows with attractive pitched slate roofs above. Further, whilst types of glazing vary, the size of the main front windows to the ground and first floors presents a similar, rhythmic form that adds to the attractive uniformity of this part of Maswell Park Crescent. 7. Dwellings in the area tend to be set back from the road behind short parking areas and have gardens to the rear. The setting back of dwellings combines with the Appeal Decision 6008691 2 presence of small areas of public open space, street trees and occasional hedges and small front garden areas, to provide for a sense of spaciousness and greenery. 8. There are street trees close to the appeal dwelling and a small green space opposite it and this provides for a pleasant immediate setting. The spaciousness associated with this also provides for wide views of the front of the appeal dwelling, from Maswell Park Cresent, from the open space and from the street’s nearby junction with Maswell Park Road. 9. During my site visit, I observed that whilst many dwellings in the area have been altered or extended, the majority of such changes appear in keeping with host dwellings and their surroundings. 10. The proposed development would replace the pitched roof above the appeal dwelling’s ground floor bay window with a flat roof. This would result in the bay window appear as an incongruous feature, unlike other bay windows along the street and it would detract significantly from the area’s uniform qualities. 11. In addition, the main first floor front window would be replaced by a larger, French window, reaching to the floor. This would appear unlike any other first floor front window in the terrace and would serve to increase the incongruous appearance of the proposal. The addition of a Juliet balcony, in the form of steel railings, would compound the harmful visual impacts of the proposal, such that the development as a whole would jar severely with its surroundings. 12. Further to all of the above, I find that the prominent siting of the proposed development, high on the front of a prominent dwelling which is widely visible in its surroundings, would add to the harm identified. 13. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2031 (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Other Matters 14. In support of the proposal, the appellant draws my attention to other developments in the locality. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that these developments and the circumstances relating to them are so similar to the proposal before me as to provide for direct comparison. 15. Notwithstanding this, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and this is not something that is mitigated by the presence of other developments elsewhere. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR