Appeal 6001881

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Conversion of single family home into two self contained flats with a single storey part rear extension at [site address] , Chiswick, Hounslow, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/2031, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

I have used the Council’s description of the development in the above banner heading as it more fully describes the proposal.

The main issues are: • Whether the conversion of the existing dwelling to two self contained flats would be appropriate having regard to its location, relevant development plan policies and its effect on the residential character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the future occupiers of the flats, with particular reference to noise and disturbance, light and outlook.

The appeal property is a two-and-a half-storey, semi-detached dwelling located towards the end of a no-through road which is residential in character and comprises family sized dwellings of a similar design and appearance as well as flatted developments. A Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed single storey side and rear extension, rear roof extension with hip to gable conversion and front roof windows to the house has recently been granted under LPA ref. 2025/0659. At the time of my site visit the property was in a deteriorated condition and in the process of undergoing extension and extensive refurbishment.

The proposal is for a single storey rear extension together with a rear extension to an existing side projection and the conversion of the existing dwelling to 2no. flats (1no. one bed and 1no. two bed). The Council has raised no objection to the proposed rear extension which is similar in its design and form to that already deemed lawful under LPA ref. 2025/0659 and I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s findings on this aspect of the proposal.

Policy H1 of The London Plan (2021) seeks to increase housing supply through various means, including to optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites, including small sites. Policy SC1 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) seeks to maintain the supply of housing in the Borough to meet housing need in a manner that is consistent with sustainable development principles, including supporting proposals for new development and conversions on other sites, in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Policy SC6 of the LP seeks to manage the conversion of buildings and the subdivision of existing housing stock so as to contribute to housing supply without having an adverse impact on the character of the area, or residents’ amenity.

The Council state that the appeal property is not in a suitable location for conversion to more dense housing, such as in a town centre or located within convenient walking distance of town centre facilities and good transport links, as set out in Policy SC10 (Housing in [name], Hostels and Bed and [name]) of the LP, crossed referenced in Policy SC6. However, Policy SC6 distinguishes between locations suitable for more intensive forms of occupation such as HMOs or several flats and other locations where the preference is for family houses to remain or potentially for conversion to flats of a more modest intensity of occupancy.

I recognise that the appeal property is outside of a town centre and within an area with a PTAL 2 rating, where public transport availability is generally poor. There are however a range of local services and facilities close to the site and in any event, I consider the proposed conversion of the house to two flats (1no. one bed flat and 1no. two bed flat) would clearly be of modest intensity and thus appropriate in less accessible locations of the Borough as set out in Policy SC6.

The appeal property comfortably exceeds the minimum 130sqm net original internal floor area to be considered suitable for conversion under Policy SC6 of the LP. It would also provide for a family-sized unit in compliance with Policy SC6 which is defined as ‘two bedroom – four person or more’. Whilst this is acknowledged by the Council, their main concern in this regard is that the family-sized unit is not accommodated on the ground floor as required by Policy SC6 of the LP.

The two-bedroom unit would provide spacious, open plan living accommodation on the ground floor, with direct access to street level and access to an area of private amenity space to the rear. Whilst the two bedrooms would be at first floor level in the form of a split level flat, this is indeed the case with most traditional forms of family sized housing. With most of the living accommodation provided on the ground floor the unit, I consider that the flat would continue to operate effectively as a family dwelling and accordingly, proposal meets the main aims and objectives of LP Policy SC6.

The number of comings and goings associated with the two proposed flats would be likely to be similar overall to those associated with a large family sized dwelling. The existing dwelling as extended would be capable of accommodating a household of greater occupancy than the two flats combined. Accordingly, the proposal would be likely to generate similar levels of footfall, deliveries and general vehicle movements and these activities would be likely to take place at similar times of the day. The proposed development would be car free and would not introduce any new vehicular access or parking spaces. Moreover, the Council confirm in the event that the proposal were to be approved, a condition could be imposed to prevent future occupants from obtaining a resident’s parking permit. I therefore find the level of activity generated by the proposal would be unlikely to be harmful to the residential character of the area.

The existing dwelling already has two entrances on its front elevation which would provide access to the two flats. The appearance of the building would be unaltered in this regard. Some alterations are proposed to the frontage of the appeal property, including its subdivision and the provision of bin and secure cycle storage. The proposed new front boundary wall and railings would be in keeping with the character and appearance of boundary treatments in the area, including at the adjoining property [address] South. The proposed gates would align with the existing front entrances and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

It is not unusual for front gardens within urban areas to be utilised for storage of bins and cycles and the proposed cycle and bins stores would be accessible and appropriately sited. However, at a height of between 1.9m – 2m, the proposed cedar cladded stores would be clearly visible above the proposed front boundary enclosure and given their proximity to the front boundary of the site, would be highly prominent in the street scene and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Whilst alternative cycle locker details have also been submitted, these do not include details of bin storage. I am however mindful that revised details of the bin and cycle storage could be required by condition in the event that I were minded to allow the appeal.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would be appropriate having regard to its location and relevant development plan policies and would not have a significantly harmful effect on the residential character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy H1 of the London Plan and Policies SC1, SC6 and SC10 of the LP as described above. The proposal would also comply with Policies CC1 and CC2 of the LP and Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan insofar as these policies expect proposals to respond to the context and character of the area and to be a high quality of design.

I have already concluded above that the use of the appeal property as 2no. self-contained flats would generate a similar level of activity to a large single-family dwelling in terms of noise, comings and goings and the times when these take place. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers or future occupiers of the flats with particular reference to general activity, noise and disturbance.

The Council raise concern regarding the sound attenuation between the two flats, having regard to their layout. [name] would be arranged over the ground and first floor as described above, whilst [name] would be arranged over the first and second floor of the property. However, the flats would be logically stacked, with the bedroom to [name] broadly aligned above the two bedrooms serving [name]. The bedrooms of [name] would be on the same floor as the living accommodation serving [name] but I have no substantive evidence to suggest that sufficient sound proofing could not be achieved. The appellant has provided some information within their statement of case regarding acoustic separation between units. Whilst this is helpful, the proposal would in any event be required to meet minimum standards of sound insulation under the Building Regulations (BR) and it is not necessary or appropriate for the planning process to duplicate BR requirements.

The Council’s concerns with regard to light levels appear to be in relation to the two bedrooms on the first floor ([name]) and the living room on the second floor ([name]). Both first floor bedrooms have a reasonable size, rear facing window with an appropriate outlook over the rear garden of the property and the trees beyond. The windows are south-east facing and even considering the depth of the bedrooms I am satisfied that they would receive an appropriate amount of daylight and sunlight. This is also confirmed in the Natural Light Assessment submitted with the appeal which assesses the proposal against guidance set out in BR209 (2022) [name] ‘Specific recommendations for daylight provision in UK dwellings’.

The second floor living room for apartment B would be served by rooflights. Whilst the outlook would be restricted, natural light would still penetrate the living space. Importantly, flat B also benefits from a kitchen / diner on the first floor which would be served by a large bay window and secondary window on its front elevation, providing a suitable outlook and good levels of light. It would of course ultimately the decision of future occupiers how these main habitable rooms are used. Similarly, the large bedroom on the second floor would offer an alternative outlook over the rear of the site and being south-east facing, would receive good levels of daylight and sunlight. Furthermore, the Natural Light Assessment concludes that all flats find compliance with BR209 (2022) [name] with regard to daylight. With regard to sunlight, both apartments have at least one habitable room which would receive more than 1.5 hours of direct sunlight on March 21st. The technical analysis demonstrates that the principle windows of the flats all receive daylight in excess of 27% VSC which is a level of daylight deemed acceptable.

Having regard to the evidence before me and all the above considerations, I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. Accordingly, the proposal accords with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024); Policies D1, D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CC1, CC2 and SC5 of the LP. Collectively and amongst other matters, these policies seek to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans condition is imposed for certainty. A condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition requiring details of refuse and waste recycling facilities is necessary to meet the needs of the development and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has suggested a condition preventing future occupiers from obtaining resident’s parking permits. As the proposal is stated to be car-free, this would be reasonable and necessary. I have also imposed a condition to ensure that the existing dropped kerb is removed and the pavement re-instated in order to comply with the terms of the application and to enhance the pedestrian environment. A condition requiring full details of cycle storage facilities is imposed in order to promote sustainable transport objectives.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25/55SLS/ EX 001; EX201; EX202; EX103; EX102; EX101; EX100; EX001; P401; P402; P403; P302; P303; P301 and P300 A; except in respect of the bin and cycle store details shown on plan 25/55LS/P403.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, full details (including manufacturer’s specifications) of the bicycle stores shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use before any part of the development is first occupied and thereafter retained for use at all times without obstruction.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied or brought into use, the Local Planning Authority shall be informed of the agreed naming and numbering of the proposed dwellings so that arrangements can be put in place to ensure that, with the exception of a person eligible for a disabled person’s badge issued pursuant to Section 21 of the [name] and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (or similar legislation), no resident of the development shall obtain a resident’s parking permit. Any occupiers of the approved development shall surrender any such permit wrongly issued or held.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied or brought into use, the existing vehicular access shall be permanently closed and kerbs reinstated so that it cannot be used as an access across the pavement.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, no part of the development shall be occupied until refuse and recycling storage facilities for each dwelling has been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the refuse and recycling storage facilities shall be maintained as approved and kept available for their approved purposes. End of Schedule