91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 November 2024 by H Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/W/24/3350047 91 The Drive, Hounslow TW3 1PW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr R.S. Pandher against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2024/1365. • The development proposed is proposed conversion existing use class C3 single dwellinghouse into C4 HMO, maximum for 6 peoples. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are six main issues.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 November 2024 by H Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/W/24/3350047 91 The Drive, Hounslow TW3 1PW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr R.S. Pandher against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref is P/2024/1365. • The development proposed is proposed conversion existing use class C3 single dwellinghouse into C4 HMO, maximum for 6 peoples. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are six main issues.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision These are: • whether the location of the proposal would be acceptable with specific regard to public transport; • whether the appeal building would be suitable for the proposed use with particular regard it’s size; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to disturbance; • the effect of the proposed development on the safe use of the highway with specific regard to parking; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with specific regard to the amount of outdoor space; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate waste and recycling facilities. Reasons Location 3. Policy SC10 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015 (HLP) expects that development proposals for HMOs (House in Multiple Occupation) should be located within convenient walking distance of town centre facilities and good public transport links. Guidance in the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) adds that the proposed development site should have at least a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4 and be within a 400 metre https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F5540/W/24/3350047 walk of a metropolitan or district town centre. This approach is taken to ensure the area in which the proposal is based can more readily absorb the additional journeys a building housing unrelated multiple occupants can create over and above a conventional single household, so as to ensure a more sustainable approach to the location of such development across the borough and a recognition of occupiers not all having access to a private car. 4. The appeal site is approximately 0.7 miles from Hounslow town centre, 0.3 miles to Hounslow East Station and it is 0.2 miles to the nearest bus stop. Apart from the nearest bus stop the other locations are more than 400 metres away from the appeal site. Whilst these distances do not present as being wholly unacceptable and potentially walkable, it assumes that any future occupant would be able bodied and not with small children which might make such journeys less desirable. They would thus not be ‘convenient’ for the purposes of Policy SC10. 5. The PTAL for the appeal site is 1b, which is relatively low. It is close to areas with higher PTAL ratings.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Be this as it may, if I were to make an exception for reasons of proximity to areas with higher ratings, there could be a cumulative adverse effect in the spread of future schemes. Further, Policy SC10 expresses the PTAL rating as ‘at least’ which strikes me as being more a line in the sand minimum than something more flexible. 6. The increase in occupants of the property would introduce a larger number of people into an area that does not have convenient walking access to town centre facilities or good public transport links. For the above reasons, such an approach is likely to encourage unsustainable patterns of new HMOs across the borough. Thus, the location of the proposal would conflict with Policy SC10, the aims of which I have set out above. Use and Size 7. As well as considering the location of new HMOs, Policy SC10 requires that the property for conversion should have a minimum original floor area greater than 130 (sqm). This is to resist the loss of smaller family dwellings and, ultimately, to maintain a good balance and mix of housing in response to what is described as a ‘pressing need’ for smaller units.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision The original floor area, prior to the existing single storey rear extension was around 73sqm, significantly below the 130 sqm policy requirement. 8. I appreciate that, taking into account the later extension, the existing building would be around 133sqm which would be sufficient. The policy and SPD are however explicit on original building for the reasons I have set out above. They set an expressed minimum and there is no stated room for manoeuvre despite that the size of the bedrooms and communal areas would meet standards in terms of the proposed layout. The appellant does not present a sufficiently compelling case for accepting a lower original floor area. 9. With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme would result in the unacceptable loss of a small dwelling through the original floor area being too small for the intended use. As such, it would conflict with Policy SC10 of the HLP. The aims of which I have set out above. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F5540/W/24/3350047 Living Conditions of Neighbouring Occupiers 10. The use of the property as a HMO would be likely to generate more activity and thus noise than its use as a conventional single family dwelling as people would be living independently. They would have differing independent lives and living, working and social patterns, with comings and goings at different times of the day and night as well as an increased frequency of home deliveries. An over concentration of similar uses can exacerbate such problems. 11. Policy SC10 and the SPD require that proposals must demonstrate that, together with other similar developments in the surrounding area, a scheme will not have a serious harmful cumulative impact in regard to this main issue. A management statement is also required to show how a scheme might be operated to limit the overall effect. 12.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision There appears to be one other HMO on the street and whilst this might not mean there would be a cumulative issue in the immediate area (although I cannot be certain since a wider assessment of concentration has not been produced), it may make the experience of the effect of the scheme on neighbouring occupiers in noise disturbance terms that more acute and noticeable since all the other units are single household dwellings. 13. There is thus insufficient evidence before me to ensure that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to disturbance. It would conflict with Policy SC10 and the SPD which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development of the type proposed will not have a harmful impact on residential amenity of the area. Highway Safety 14. Given the low PTAL rating I have gone into more detail on above, this may lead future occupiers to own a car to rely on to access services, education and employment. There is some off street space to the front of the building but this is limited to significantly less than the intended number of occupiers.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision I accept that not all occupiers would own a vehicle but in the absence of any controls that could ensure such it could not be ruled out. There was some capacity on the street for parking but the site visit at which I observed this was during the day when neighbours may be at work. I am unaware of the situation in the evening or at weekends. 15. A parking stress survey may shed some light on these matters and the SPD requires as much, but one has not been provided. I cannot therefore be sufficiently certain of what the overall effect in regard to parking demand might be arising out of the proposal. Consequently, there is a risk of added parking pressure near the appeal site, which would harm highway safety particularly if drivers are searching for parking spaces and manoeuvring vehicles into them or causing obstructions through inappropriate parking which may inhibit the free flow of local traffic. 16. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy EC2 of the HLP. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development demonstrates that sufficient parking is provided. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F5540/W/24/3350047 Living Conditions of Future Occupiers 17. To the rear of the appeal property is a garden area which has a gated access from the side as well as from the proposed shared kitchen/living area. There is disagreement as to the quantum of outdoor amenity space and whether it would meet the requirement in Policy SC5 of the HLP and the guidance in the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD) which require that in dwellings with more than 5 habitable rooms, 75 sqm of external space. As the proposal would accommodate six unrelated occupiers, I cannot therefore be certain that there would be sufficient space for occupiers to utilise the outdoor area for relaxation and other domestic activities. 18. There is thus insufficient evidence before me to ensure that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space. It would accordingly conflict with Policies SC5 and SC10 and the SPD which together and amongst other matters seek to ensure that development contributes to improving the quality of housing in the Borough. Waste and Recycling 19.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision The use of the property as a HMO would require additional provision of waste and recycling storage as outlined in the Recycling and Refuse Guidance. Whilst there are no details before me of any additional provision, it does not strike me that, given the number of occupiers and the space to the front, side and rear of the building, such storage areas could not be accommodated somewhere. Details thereof could be secured and approved via condition were the appeal to be allowed. The proposal would thus comply with Policies SC10 and EQ7 which together and amongst other matters seek to ensure that development incorporates suitable arrangements for waste management. Planning Balance and Conclusion 20. The appeal scheme would give rise to numerous harms and conflict with the development plan as I have set them out. Given their nature and extent of development plan conflict, I afford these matters substantial weight. HMO’s make an important contribution to housing stock and the scheme would create new homes which would contribute towards boosting national supply. It would also provide adequate waste and recycling storage although this lack of harm is a neutral matter.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — Appeal Decision With this and the above in mind, I would ascribe these matters moderate weight. 21. I am therefore led to conclude that there is nothing of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan and that, consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.

91 The Drive, HOUNSLOW, TW3 1PW — London Borough of Hounslow — H Senior INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4