London Borough of Hounslow appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Hounslow?
See which local examples addressed light, bedroom circulation and noise for neighbours.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 116 of 286
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 65
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 50
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 109
- of 116 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Hounslow LPA (51.468493, −0.366095). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hounslow appeal findings
Hounslow evidence on light, bedrooms and noise
Appeal 91106 concerns future occupants’ rooms, not neighbouring residents, so it gives limited neighbour-specific detail.
Counted against appeals
Tight bedroom widths and MOT noise
Bedroom widths restricted circulation
Some bedroom widths limited circulation, especially in rooms at or near the minimum size.
Noise harm was not demonstrated
Insufficient information showed that noise and disturbance would not harm neighbouring occupants.
Helped or needed
Light, outlook and extension guidance
No significant light or outlook harm
The proposed extension would not significantly harm a neighbour’s light or outlook.
Minor guidance conflict, no neighbour harm
A rear extension would not harm living conditions at neighbouring properties despite a minor guidance conflict.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice specify light, outlook, noise or disturbance?
- Do proposed bedroom widths leave usable circulation space?
- What evidence addresses possible noise and disturbance for neighbours?
Appeal 90551’s extract only concludes that the proposal would not unduly affect living conditions at neighbouring properties. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
10 March 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
proposed part single part double side and rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook and light.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would not have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to light and outlook. Accordingly, it would comply with Policies CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (2015) and the intent of the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2017) which together and amongst other matters, seek to minimise harm to neighbouring residents by avoiding an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, outlook or by creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
17 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a part single, part 2 storey rear extension following demolition of an existing rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the house and this part of [address]; and (ii) living conditions at neighbouring properties, in terms of effects on outlook and privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I note that no neighbours have objected. Despite a minor conflict with the guidance in the SPD, I conclude that the proposal would not harm living conditions at neighbouring properties. It also accords in this respect with LP policies CC1, CC2 and SC7, which additionally aim to minimise harm to neighbouring residents.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Erection of 8 flats, comprising 2 no. three-bedroom flats, 4 no. two- bedroom flats, 1 no. one-bedroom flat, and 1 no. bedsit. The proposal includes associated amenity space and cycle parking, following the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a basement level.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
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.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
17 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a 2 storey rear and side extension with associated roof alteration to the house without complying with a condition attached to planning permission [name]/2023/1566, dated 21 May 2024.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cranford Village Conservation Area; and ii) The effect of the proposal on living conditions at neighbouring properties.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not unduly affect living conditions at neighbouring properties. It accords in this respect with LP policies CC2 and SC7, which aim to minimise harm to neighbouring residents.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
11 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from car garage to sui generis i.e. MOT centre.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the development on highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons detailed above, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore, it conflicts with policies CC2 and EQ5 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (HLP) which require that developments have a positive impact on the amenity of current and future residents and demonstrate that new plant and machinery do not harm the amenity of neighbouring properties and generate a noise level that is at least 10dB below the background noise level.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2