Retention of part single storey side extension and front canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 August 2026 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by Paul Thompson DipTRP MAUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009595 16 Lansbury Avenue, Feltham, Hounslow TW14 0JP • 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 M Malik against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2025/2698. • The development is described as “retention of part single storey side extension and front canopy”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Preliminary Matter 3. I note that the appeal relates to the “retention” of development already carried out. However, the evidence before me demonstrates that there are material differences between the development as constructed and that shown on the proposed plans. During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared, from the front elevation, to be broadly consistent with drawing P1604 of the proposed development. Nevertheless, I understand that the proposal would reduce the depth of the side extension at the rear. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, I have assessed the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans, whilst also taking account the situation on the ground. 4. The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. Following changes to selected policies referred to within the evidence, I have sought the further view of parties. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site comprises an end-of-terrace, two-storey dwelling. It is situated within a predominantly residential area characterised by rows of similarly scaled terraced dwellings which display a broadly consistent building line and massing. Appeal Decision 6009595 2 Whilst there is some variation in external materials and alterations to individual properties, with particular regard to front extensions, the area retains a cohesive appearance. This is further reinforced by the regular presence of gaps between terraces, which create a consistent rhythm of built form and openness within the street scene. These factors contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The side extension would be acceptable in terms of its proportions and design, as it would relate subordinately and appropriately to the scale and design of the host dwelling. However, its proportions would not accord with the advice set out within the Hounslow Character, Sustainability and Design Codes SPD: Part A5 Residential Extension Guidelines (2024) (SPD). This advises a setback of 1 metre from the front elevation in order to prevent a terracing effect along the street. 8. The cumulative effect of its width and siting up to the boundary means it would occupy around half of the remaining gap between No 16 and the neighbouring terrace, an effect of which can already be observed. Given the limited prevalence of similar development within such gaps in the street, the extension would result in a visually harmful reduction of the separation between these buildings. Consequently, it would diminish the contribution that the spacing of the terraces makes to the character and appearance of the street scene. 9. Turning to the effect of the canopy, the development would appear as a prominent and visually intrusive feature within the street scene, again an effect which is already observable. Whilst a number of properties have front extensions of varying massing and design, they are modest in scale and width and do not obscure the form of the original dwelling and their contribution to the wider uniformity of the area. In contrast, the appeal canopy would extend across almost the entirety of the front elevation, giving it a disproportionate, dominant appearance which would appear incongruous within the wider street scene. 10. For these reasons, the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Hence, it would conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015- 2030. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that extensions and alterations respond sensitively to their context, remain subordinate to the host dwelling, and preserve or enhance the established character and appearance of the street scene through high-quality design that harmonises with surrounding development. I further find the development fails to follow the advice set out within the SPD. Other Matters 11. I recognise that a similarly scaled development exists at 1 Lansbury Avenue within the wider context of the road. However, this is located next to an access track which is alongside the rear boundaries of the development along Hounslow Road meaning that a terracing effect would not be produced in its siting. Furthermore, 35, 143, 182 and 184 Hounslow Road are not located within the same context of uniformity as that of the appeal scheme. In any event, the examples provided are all located alongside a large gap or break in the development pattern which would therefore avoid the potential of a terracing effect or substantive reduction of building gaps. 12. The appellant notes that the conclusions found under the previous appeal decision APP/F5540/D/18/3203888 did not reflect the context and minimised the harm Appeal Decision 6009595 3 arising from the setback as a relatively minor detail with harm arising from a potential cumulative impact and setting of precedent. Whilst I have had regard to this appeal decision, the harm I have identified is based on the particular circumstances of the appeal scheme and its context before me. Planning Balance, Conclusion and Recommendation 13. Policy S3 of the Framework requires that decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In criterion “a” it notes that Policy S4 should be applied for development within settlements. 14. Policy S4(1) sets out that development proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the decision-making policies of the Framework. It then goes on to provide circumstances which may be likely to cause adverse effects, although caveats that these are not restricted to those specified. 15. The appellant has advanced the benefits of the development being increased ground floor accommodation, improved functionality of the accommodation, and a sheltered space to the front of the property. Whilst I’ve had regard to these benefits, they are limited to the private occupants of the host dwelling and, are limited in scale. 16. Policy DP3 of the Framework requires that development proposals respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. As set out above, the development results in a visually intrusive and incongruous form of development that disrupts the established character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. 17. Having regard to the benefits of the development and the adverse effects arising from it with regard to the Policies of the Framework, I conclude that the enduring harm to character and appearance would substantially outweigh the limited benefits that the development brings. 18. Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Paul Thompson INSPECTOR