Appeal 6003029

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council is currently undertaking a Local Plan Review. The emerging Hounslow Local Plan 2020-2041 (emerging plan) was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination on 23 June 2025. The stage 2 hearings sessions are on the 12-14th May. After the hearings the emerging plan policies may be subject to amendments. Thus, the emerging plan carries limited weight at this time.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the existing occupiers of [site address] , with regard to the provision of on-site communal outdoor amenity space.

The existing roof terrace is accessed via a communal corridor which means the flats within the building have direct access to this space. The roof terrace principally serves flats 1 to 8 which have no private outdoor amenity space. The exception is flat 9 which, despite having access to the terrace, has its own private outdoor amenity space in the form of a balcony. The roof terrace is a large area which is formed of hardstanding. There is a wall around its edge to keep existing occupiers safe when on the roof terrace. On my site visit, I observed that the roof terrace appeared to be in a state of good repair but also noticed there was no domestic paraphernalia within it. Nevertheless, the roof terrace had good levels of sunlight, and was convenient to access.

The proposed development is for the creation of a two-bed flat with a private balcony on the communal roof terrace. This means the proposed development would lead to the total loss of the communal outdoor amenity space.

Policy D6 of the London Plan sets out key qualitative aspects which should be addressed in the design of new housing developments. Point iv of the 3.2 table relates to communal outside amenity spaces. The existing roof terrace meets the majority of the points set in point iv in that it provides sufficient space to meet the requirements of the number of residents, their diverse needs and their informal social activities. The roof terrace can be easily accessed by flats 1 to 9 through a communal corridor. On my site visit, I found that the roof terrace had good levels of sunlight, daylight, privacy and outlook. Therefore, the existing roof terrace is good quality and generally meets the qualitative standards set out in policy D6.

It may be the case that the existing occupiers do not utilise the existing roof terrace, as argued by the appellant. Nevertheless, having the option to use the communal outdoor amenity space is important because flats 1 to 8 do not have any private outdoor amenity space. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that residents do not have, or could not have, access to the roof terrace. Thus, the loss of good quality communal outdoor amenity space would be detrimental to the living conditions of the existing occupiers of those flats.

From my site visit, I found that Silverhall Park is within walking distance from the appeal site. However, it requires occupants to leave the building, walk along [address] and cross a highly trafficked road. I also noted that Silverhall Park had opening and closing times. Thus, access to Silverhall Park is not as convenient as the access to the current communal outdoor amenity space. The roof terrace, while shared, is still private to some degree, whereas Silverhall Park is a public open space and does not have the same degree of privacy. Consequently, I do not consider that using Silverhall Park for outdoor amenity space is a suitable or realistic alternative.

In conclusion, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the existing occupiers of [site address] , with regard to loss of provision of on-site communal outdoor space. Consequently, it would not comply with the relevant provisions set out in Policy SC5 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021. These policies seek to provide and protect the living conditions of existing occupiers through high quality design standards, including amenity space.

While not referred to in the decision notice, the appellant has referred to paragraph 125 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This paragraph in summary relates to making effective use of land but finds that developments should also comply with local policies, standards and other parts of the framework. I have found the development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the existing occupiers of flats of [site address] and does not comply with local design policies and standards. Consequently, the proposed development would also not comply with the provisions set out in 125 of the NPPF.

My attention is drawn to application P/2013/0266 which allowed the erection of a single storey extension to the flat on the roof terrace of the building. I do not consider this case directly comparable to the one before me because it did not lead to the total loss of the provision of on-site communal outdoor amenity space. I have determined this appeal based on the evidence provided, including the submitted plans, and this matter does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would create a residential unit in an accessible location which would likely provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed development. It would also not have a harmful impact on the neighbouring flats in terms of overlooking, outlook, daylight or sunlight. It would make a small contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply and would be an efficient use of land. However, any benefits to be drawn in these respects would be insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appellant’s have indicated that a different Council officer was going to recommend approval and provided correspondence in support of this. I have reviewed this evidence. While the officer did request further information, the correspondence does not set out any recommendation. I do not have the full details of any negotiations that went on during the application. In any event, I have considered this appeal based on the evidence before me, including the submitted plans. This matter has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.