Appeal 6003943

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.

An outline proposal for residential accommodation has been approved at the site and is therefore an extant permission.1 This was approved with full details of vehicular access only. No further planning applications has been submitted with regards to reserved matters.

I note the council described the proposal as ‘Erection of a part two-part four-storey building to provide six self-contained flats.’ This differs from the description in the banner heading above that has been taken from the appellant’s appeal form. Whilst this differs, no parties have been adversely prejudiced by the differences.

The main issues regarding the proposal are: • Whether or not the development would mitigate carbon emissions; • The effect on the character and appearance of the local area; • The effect on the living conditions of the local residents by way of sense of overbearing and enclosure, outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy; and 1 Application number P/2023/2374 • The effect on the living conditions of the future occupants by way of internal and external space.

The appeal site is located within the [name] housing estate that also encompasses [name] and from my understanding was originally a planned housing development associated with the former army barracks along [address]. The site consists of a parcel of enclosed vacant land with hardstanding, located between the dwellings of 83 and [address].

The character of the area is entirely residential made up of two storey dwellings of a similar appearance and materiality, erected as a planned housing development. Immediately behind the appeal site along Green Lane, the local area is mixed in character with modern residential flats and prestigious vehicle dealerships amongst the other large commercial offerings.

New residential development should promote low carbon design and energy efficiency at both a local and national policy level through sustainable design and construction to achieve net zero carbon. If necessary, a financial contribution towards off-setting the damaging effects of carbon emissions will be sought from the appellant.

The appellant has submitted sustainability details via an energy and sustainability statement of how the proposed development can reduce carbon emissions including through the process of ‘lean’ and ‘green’ and ‘clean’ measures, and finally an off-set measure. The Council’s Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPG) directs development through a holistic integrated approach to sustainable design. This is through four key stages from site assessment, resources and lifespan, building fabric and services and finally movement. I apply significant weight to this SPG.

Whilst the proposal exceeds building regulations targets for energy efficiency in some regards, it is not fully compliant with the target to increase energy efficiency at the site that is included in the SPG and set by Greater London Authority Energy Planning guidance, introducing an additional benchmark improvement of 50% over [name] 2013 of the Building Regulations. Together with SAP figures, the appellant should demonstrate how they have maximised energy efficiencies at the site. The Council highlight that a financial contribution towards off-setting carbon emissions would be required although the financial reliance on this would be reduced should the appellant upgrade the green credentials of the development, as required by the adopted guidance.

The appellant agrees to ‘minor revisions’ to the proposal in order to conform to targets together with a financial contribution secured through a legal obligation. However, this has not been forthcoming and without precise details before me to evidence this commitment, I cannot be certain that the proposal would be built to meet the wider overarching ambition to achieve net zero carbon emissions. This carries significant weight in my consideration of the proposal.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposal would fail to mitigate the effects of climate change, contrary to the Council's Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document (2025), Local Plan policies EQ1 and EQ2 that aims for all development to reduce energy and carbon emissions, and the London Plan Policy SI2 in its intent to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, and the wide sustainability values of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The vehicular access into the development would be taken from Green Lane with only pedestrian access from the site into [address]. The proposal would be a stepped arrangement of blocks set back and positioned to more closely relate to Green Lane than [address]. Therefore, given the vehicular access arrangements, I find the need for the site to more closely relate to Green Lane than to [address].

The Council points me to the regeneration of [address] and the justification behind these new residential developments that I could see. These are medium scale to large scale positioned amongst other high rise residential development and visible from Green Lane. As a whole they form part of the public vista.

The proposed flats as a single block of flats would not correspond with the housing typology seen at [address] consisting of modestly sized two storey houses, largely set in long rows. However, the proposal is flatted development of a typology that would more closely correspond with the adjacent flats. At the scale proposed it would appear broadly consistent with the overall scale and massing of the adjacent modern new build flats which I believed to be called [address], even if the higher four storey element would be adjacent to the lower element of those flats. The two would sit in close relationship to one another and appear as a development with strong visual consistency.

This visually compliant relationship would also be enhanced by the choice of proposed finished materiality that would appear cohesive, and the unifying appearance would assimilate and integrate successfully with the general street scene without appearing as an anomaly. Other buildings in close quarters are modern, flat roofed and although a number are in commercial use, the local area is mixed in character. The proposal would adhere to the residential character along this side of Green Lane and broadly correspond with the larger scale of these commercial units.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposal would be of an acceptable scale and character that meets the objectives of the character and context objective of Local Plan policies CC1 and CC2, and the National Planning Policy Framework in its intent to secure good design, and policy D3 of the London Plan that refers to development responding positively to character.

The closest houses to the site are located at Number 83 and 85 [name]. They have small rear gardens that abut the appeal site. The gable end of these houses and their gardens would side onto the appeal site.

Both occupants of these houses would view the development as it would be located in close range. However, given the orientation and the otherwise open aspects the occupants of these houses enjoy from other unobstructed angles, I am not convinced that it would give rise to a sense of overbearing or sense of enclosure from inside the dwellings or from the rear gardens that would result in detrimentally harming the living conditions of these occupants.

Nevertheless, the rear of the proposal would be in close range of the small rear garden of Number 83. The proposed rear elevation contains habitable rooms with windows that would overlook the garden space of Number 83. As the proposal would be at three or four storeys here, the garden would be exposed to overlooking from a series of habitable room windows looking down across the private garden space. Irrespective of the findings of the Daylight and [name] before me, the relationship with the proposal to the residential dwelling would lead to overlooking and a loss of privacy as a consequence, to the detriment of the occupants.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the adjacent occupants of Number 83 by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy contrary to the aims of safeguarding residential amenity of Local Plan policy CC2 and London Plan policy D3 only in so far as safeguarding living conditions is concerned, and the National Planning Policy Framework in its similar objectives. There is no direct relevance to policy CC1 as this is more akin to a design-led policy.

Located within the noise contours of [name] and along a busy road network of Green Lane, the site is exposed to both aircraft and vehicular noise pollution that can have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the future occupants. This is especially important as the occupants rely on openable windows for ventilation purposes. As the only means of ventilation, this would lead to harm arising to the occupant’s living conditions. Therefore, without evidence before me as to how the development can be acceptably mitigated against these noise pollutants, the living conditions of the occupants would not be safeguarded.

Furthermore, internal room sizes should conform to [name] to which the local plan supports. A number of bedroom widths fail to provide an acceptable living standard for future occupants. These habitable rooms would provide an uncomfortable standard of living condition for the occupants.

Although flat 6 would not be strictly compliant with private external standards raised by the Council, it is a two-bed dwelling, and the terrace would extend the full width of the front of the flat. It would therefore provide useable external space for the occupants, and I therefore find it to be acceptable provision in this regard.

A level of communal external space is required to be policy compliant and as a whole, the outdoor space meets this criteria. I however share the concerns of the Council who question the function of the external space designed as an attenuation basin as external amenity space. There is uncertainty surrounding its design, function and overall form. Without precise information on this element, I cannot be sure that the future occupants would have sufficient quality external open space available for them to enjoy. This is especially pertinent as they would rely on this open space given the location of the development to other public open spaces.

To conclude on this main issue, the living conditions of future occupants would not be safeguarded by virtue of effects of external noise and pollution, and inadequate internal and external space. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the Local Plan policies SC5, EQ4, EQ5, London Plan policies D6, D14 and SI in their combined aims to secure acceptable internal and external space, noise and air quality reduction, and the same broad objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There are benefits ascribed to the proposal by way of providing new housing within the borough. The contribution of six new units would add to the supply but would be modest in the overall scheme of things. I apply limited weight to this increase. There would be biodiversity enhancements and SUDS integration incorporated into the site. There is nothing before me to indicate the appellant has provided over and above what is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It is therefore afforded some weight. It may meet BRE daylight standards to each habitable room. However, this is neutral in the overall scheme of things and neither weighs for or against the proposal.

The proposal I have found to be acceptable in terms of its character and appearance and effect on the street scene. There are letters of support garnered to the proposal and some benefits although they are modest and limited in extent. The proposal would fall short in the areas I have identified earlier and as a whole there is nothing before me to outweigh the harm I have previously identified.

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.