Conversion of garage into habitable room and loft conversion and single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2026 by Ryan Cowley MPlan (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011906 26 Elmwood Avenue, Feltham, Hounslow TW13 7BE • 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 Tarsem Kaur Bansi no against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2025/3632. • The development proposed is conversion of garage into habitable room and loft conversion and single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage into habitable room and loft conversion and single storey front extension at 26 Elmwood Avenue, Feltham, Hounslow TW13 7BE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2025/3632, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P.M.000 Rev 0; P.M.400 Rev B; P.M.500 Rev C; P.M.501 Rev C; P.M.600 Rev B; P.M.700 Rev 0. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. On 17 August 2026, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. The parts of the Framework relevant to this appeal have not substantively changed. I have thus not sought further submissions. I have had regard to the latest version of the Framework where relevant in this appeal. Main Issue 3. The Council’s sole reason for refusal refers exclusively to the proposed front extension. Neither the Decision Notice nor the Officer Report set out any concerns regarding other elements of the proposal, with regard to relevant planning matters. Based on the evidence and my own observations, there is no compelling reason for me to reach a different conclusion. 4. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Appeal Decision 6011906 2 Reasons 5. The site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling, set back from the footpath behind a driveway. The front elevation of the appeal dwelling is wide, considerably more so than the adjoining property, having been extended to the side at some point in its past. The appeal dwelling currently features a single storey, heavily glazed, front porch extension, which incorporates the ground floor projecting bay window. This is similar to the porch extension at the adjoining dwelling. 6. The surrounding area comprises a mix of residential and commercial uses. However, in the vicinity of the appeal site, this side of the road is predominantly characterised by 2-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings of varying size and appearance, set back from the road behind driveways and front gardens. Projecting bay windows and porches are a common feature in the street scene, though there is considerable variation in the size and design of porches. 7. The Hounslow Character, Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) May 2024 – Part A5 Residential Extension Guidelines highlights that front extensions must be minor and not alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street, due to their prominent location. It advises that front extensions that are larger than a porch will normally be refused because they stand out as unusual, bulky extensions that significantly change the appearance of the house and street. The SPD specifies that the depth of any porch should not normally extend out past the line of a bay window unless there is a clear and acceptable design reason for doing so. 8. The proposed front extension in this case would project beyond the existing bay window, albeit this would be incorporated into the proposal under the proposed canopy. A gap would be left between the porch itself and the bay, revealing the full form of the original bay that is currently obscured by the existing porch. 9. The size of the proposal would be proportionate to the size of the appeal dwelling. While its design would differ from that of the adjoining dwelling, there has already been considerable divergence in size and appearance between each house and so it would not appear unduly out of character or significantly unbalance the pair. 10. The terrace of dwellings on the opposite side steps forward of the front elevation of the appeal dwelling. The adjacent dwelling features a large porch extension that is separate from, and extends beyond, its own bay window. A similar arrangement exists along much of the rest of the neighbouring terrace. The proposed front extension in this case would not extend appreciably forward of this neighbouring terrace and so would not appear unduly obtrusive in views along the road. 11. The proposed front extension would ultimately not appear unusual or bulky in the context of the appeal site and its surroundings and would not significantly change the appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street. It would therefore not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would be in accordance with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030. These policies, among other provisions, support high-quality urban design and architecture, seek to ensure that developments respond to the wider context and its urban structure, form and function, and that residential extensions and alterations complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the character of the general street scene. Appeal Decision 6011906 3 Other Matters 12. Representations from an interested party raised concerns that the proposed garage conversion could become a self-contained residential unit. The Council indicated that this matter could have been addressed using a planning condition. 13. While the conversion would accommodate a bedroom, en-suite bathroom and utility room, the application was submitted as a householder planning application. It does not seek to subdivide the appeal site or create a self-contained dwelling. Both the bedroom and utility room would be internally accessible from the rest of the dwelling. These rooms would not benefit from a separate external access, separate parking or separate private amenity space. 14. Ultimately, if the proposal were not built or used as indicated, or if a material change of use to a separate dwelling does occur, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required. This condition is thus not necessary. Conclusion 15. The development adheres to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that would outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal succeeds. Ryan Cowley INSPECTOR