Appeal 6002897

The appeal is dismissed.

The emerging Hounslow Local Plan 2020 to 2041 is progressing towards adoption and at an advanced stage. This plan therefore carries more than moderate weight. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan. The proposal before me was determined against the Local Plan for Hounslow, adopted in 2015. As adopted policy it carries significant weight.

The main issues of the proposal are the impact on: • The character and appearance of the local area; and • The living conditions of the future occupants by way of outlook, sense of enclosure, light levels and whether or not the bedroom sizes and external spaces are adequate.

The existing houses sit in a row of other dwellings along [address] in a neighbourhood of mixed character with the large-scale [name] adjacent to the site on the same side of [address]. These two detached houses would be demolished to combine the two plots in order to create a single building of eight flats that would have the characteristics of a double fronted dwelling.

Inside the building accommodation would be spread across the ground and first floors with flats in the loft space and over a basement. The site presently benefits an extant consent for a two-storey building with part basement to create six self-contained flats1. Therefore, this is a material consideration.

The building line of the proposed dwelling would largely correspond with the existing building line of the row of houses along this side of [address] it sits amongst. It would be a larger scale than the two combined houses it would replace appearing as a double fronted dwelling with design cues taken from the local vernacular incorporating peaked gable ends and square shaped front bay windows.

A typical feature of the street scene are traditional solid boundary walls that provide defensible space between the small front gardens of the houses here and the public footway, or dwarf walls with timber fencing above, all at a fairly consistent finished height. These are part and parcel of the local character and contribute to a sense of place. In this circumstance, lightwells would be included in the design within the front garden space with metal safety railings surrounding the lightwells for safety purposes and located either side of the pedestrian middle path available for access to the communal front door.

Lightwells would be an anomaly here and visible from the public vantage. The surrounding safety rail would be an uncharacteristic feature of this suburban context. It would add a utilitarian appearance to the development more akin to public pedestrian safety guard rail than a domestic aesthetic along this side of [address] where the proposal would otherwise be closely related to the neighbouring residential dwellings, despite the mixed context it is experienced within.

I cannot be sure that there would be sufficient landscaping space between the railings and the proposed boundary enclosure along [address] to effectively screen and mitigate the effects of these railings as per the appellant suggestion to impose a planning condition. Therefore, a planning condition would not meet the expectations of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance on The Use of Planning Conditions. The lightwells and their railings would appear as a visually obtrusive and out of character addition to the street scene.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the lightwells and corresponding railings would introduce an uncharacteristic feature into this traditional front garden space to the detriment of the character and appearance of the local area contrary to the intentions of the Local Plan policies CC1 (Context and Character), CC2 ([name] and Architecture) and SC4 (Scale and density of new housing development) together with the same design aims of the London Plan policies D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach), D4 (Delivering good design) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to promote high quality design. 1 Application ref P/2024/3505 Erection of two storey building with part basement comprising of six flats with associated amenity space and cycle parking following part demolition of the existing building. Approved 28 March 2025

The proposed eight flats would consist of a combination of one to three bed flats and a studio flat. The governments’ [name] (NDSS) contain the minimum internal space requirements for new dwellings. These requirements are also applied in a local context with London Plan Policy D6 and Table 3.1 to ensure a high quality of design as well as Hounslow local plan policy SC5 which requires suitable internal and external space.

The proposed two basement flats are subterranean. No habitable spaces were included in the basement area within the extant permission.

The sole outlook of habitable rooms within the basement flats of A and B would be into the lightwells and onto their perimeter walls within very close quarters of the internal living space. The lightwells would be excavated from the ground level and in close relationship to these windows. Therefore, future occupants would experience a sense of enclosure with reduced outlook from these habitable spaces.

Courtyards may be a commonality of subterranean living in urban locations. However, without precise details of a survey to ensure adequate light levels enter these habitable spaces, even with their ceiling heights to be around 2.5m in height, it is not demonstrated that the living conditions of future occupants would be safeguarded. This would be made more severe as the overhanging balconies of the flats above on the ground floor at flats C and D would obscure views of the skyline above and furthermore allow direct overlooking onto these courtyard spaces that are intended to be private external space for the basement flats. The occupants would experience overlooking and a loss of privacy as a consequence.

In addition, not every bedroom width complies with policy requirements with regards to internal width and therefore circulation space is limited and can result in a reduced standard of living conditions for the future occupants. This would be especially significant where bedroom sizes meet the minimum standard only, or are only slightly above this level. Other flats may meet or exceed prescribed living space standards, but this as a whole this does not justify unacceptable living conditions to occupants especially as a number of flats are intended as three-bedroom family units.

Issues apportioned to the quality of private amenity space and quantity of communal amenity space is also in disagreement with the two parties. [name] discount the overhanging balconies to flats C and D due to other reasons explained earlier, I cannot reasonably consider them as acceptable amenity space for the occupants. Therefore, as a whole, the amenity space available to residents of the development would be substandard.

To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would not safeguard the living conditions of the future occupants and would therefore not meet the amenity aims of Local Plan policies SC3 (Meeting the need for a mix of housing size and type), SC4 (Scale and density of new housing development) and SC5 (Ensuring suitable internal and external space), the London Plan policies D4 (Delivering good design), D5 ([name]) and D6 (Housing quality and standards).

I have considered the accessible location of the proposal, there are no concerns raised by the council regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of local residents or on the public highway and it would be car free development. These matters are however neutral in the overall scheme of things. There may be no land contamination issues and energy efficiency or fire safety considerations are not in dispute between the parties, and I have no reason to form an alternative view on these matters. This is also neutral in the overall scheme of things.

The land may be considered as previously developed land and optimised to create dwellings on site and an uplift in units when compared to the extant permission. Be that as it may, the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm I have previously outlined with regards to both the effect on character and appearance of the local area, and living conditions of future occupants. These weigh heavily against the proposal.

There is no evidence before me to indicate how residential flat prices within the local area have fallen and the effect of this on the viability of the extant permission or the scheme before me.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.