- Decision
- dismissed, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Lancaster
- Authority
- Hounslow (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6008707
- Application reference
- P/2026/0295
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of family house to 8-person HMO (sui generis)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 SC10, HMO SPD 2017
- Main issues
- accessibility of HMO location
Summary
This was an 8-person HMO in a detached Feltham house with PTAL 1b, about 1.4 km from the nearest designated town centre. The appeal was dismissed on location alone. The inspector used DP3(2)(a), a design principle about good connections and prioritising walking and public transport. Through DP3(3), which says refuse, poor accessibility became a substantial-weight harm alongside TR3. Together they substantially outweighed the limited housing-choice benefit under S4.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Further comments were invited on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- Accessibility: FAIL. "given the site has been given a PTAL Rating of 1b, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site would have access to good public transport links" (DL ¶7). The site is "approximately 1.4km from the nearest designated Metropolitan or District Town Centre" (DL ¶8).
- DP3 used for location. "This is contrary to the Framework's principles for the creation of well-designed places by providing good connections to the wider settlement ... and prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport, as set out in Policy DP3(2)(a) ... Policy DP3(3) ... states that development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm" (DL ¶15).
- TR3: substantial weight (DL ¶16).
Planning balance
This was the S4 balance. The benefits got limited weight because "no additional dwelling would be created" (DL ¶14). DP3(3) and TR3 each got substantial weight. The result was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17).
What made the difference
The low PTAL and the absence of bus-route and frequency evidence. The novel move is treating a transport-accessibility shortcoming as a DP3(2)(a) design-principle conflict. That brings in DP3(3)'s "should be refused" wording, and so S4(2)(c)-type force, for a location objection inside a settlement.
Transferable points
- DP3(2)(a) (good connections, priority to walking and public transport) plus DP3(3) can make poor accessibility a refusal-type design conflict within settlements (DL ¶15).
- The appellant must evidence bus frequency and routes to overcome a low PTAL (DL ¶7).
- An HMO that creates no additional dwelling gets limited housing weight (DL ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(3) | fail | substantial | poor accessibility conflicts with DP3(2)(a) good connections and priority to walking and public transport, so DP3(3) says refuse (DL 15) |
| TR3 | fail | substantial | PTAL 1b; about 1.4km to nearest designated town centre; bus routes and frequencies not evidenced (DL 7-9, 16) |
| S4(1) | fail | limited benefit (no additional dwelling, modest housing choice) substantially outweighed (DL 13-17) |
Key facts
- PTAL 1b; SPD asks for PTAL 4 and within 400m of a Metropolitan or District centre; site about 1.4km away (DL 6-8)
- No overconcentration and no amenity or parking objection (DL 12)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.