Quality housing in Hounslow: A vision

Hounslow’s population is growing (14% between 2011 and 2021) and the Borough has a diverse community with particular housing needs. As elsewhere in London, access to decent affordable housing is a challenge for many people; The Council is tackling this through house-building programmes and significant investment in Council and Social Rent homes.

To make the most of this investment, our homes should be robust and durable, providing long-term value and affordability, whilst also achieving an appropriate amount of adaptability to respond positively to evolving needs as individuals and families grow, change and age. They should be accessible, safe and secure, providing relaxing, uplifting spaces, indoor and out, where we can feel at home.

Our homes should be comfortable in the long-term and designed appropriately to support our everyday existence, diverse ways of life and family structures. They should instil a sense of pride and ownership regardless of tenure, contributing to places that feel loved and cared for.

1.1. A sense of pride and ownership

1.1.1. Have the needs of different user groups been considered and accommodated when designing the organisation of the home, e.g. multi-generational homes?

1.1.2. Have relationships between homes been designed to support good ‘eyes on the street’ to foster a sense of interconnectivity and community among residents?

1.1.3. Are there opportunities for residents to take ownership and express themselves through decoration and embellishment, including through specific clauses in tenancy agreements?

1.1.4. Does the development provide welcoming, hard-wearing shared spaces for daily interactions with neighbours, e.g. generous proportions, natural light, a visual connection to the public realm?

1.1.5. Have opportunities been taken to deliver delight and generosity within the home, e.g. deep and well detailed communal and private entrances with easy access to storage?

1.1.6. Has sufficient thought and care been given to the external design of new homes, so that they have a sense of character that is likely to remain desirable and well-loved in the long term?

1.2. Comfort and adaptability

1.2.1.  Have opportunities been taken to maximise natural daylight & outlook, whilst managing overheating and residents' privacy?

1.2.2. Does the home provide a safe, secure and relaxing environment for an appropriate range of users?

1.2.3. Does the design of the home create comfortable internal environments that avoid disturbance from factors such as overheating and noise?

1.2.4. Has a sufficient amount and quality of storage been provided to accommodate the needs of different residents and changing requirements over time?

1.2.5. Have the rooms and spaces been designed to allow for multiple furniture arrangements and uses to suit different ways of living within the home, e.g to support homeworking?

1.2.6. Does the design of homes support changing needs of residents, e.g. due to disability or injury, changing family structures or life-stages?

1.3. Generous accessibility

1.3.1. Does the layout make it easy to reach front doors and entrances?

1.3.2. Are entrances and associated wayfinding visible and clearly identifiable from the street?

1.3.3. Is there a robust fire evacuation strategy in place that includes appropriate escape routes, travel distances and refuge points?

1.3.4. Does the design of the homes enable adaptations so that residents can continue to live in their home, or within their community, throughout various life-stages?

1.4. Useful private outdoor space

1.4.1. Is the private outdoor space appropriately sized in relation to the dwelling?

1.4.2. Is the private outdoor space well- orientated to maximise outlook, sunlight and acoustic constraints?

1.4.3. Are boundaries to amenity spaces attractive, safe and durable, whilst providing a balance between openness and privacy?

1.4.4. Does the private outdoor space enhance internal space e.g. by providing additional circulation routes or by enabling overspill from living spaces?

1.4.5. Is the private outdoor space sufficiently flexible to suit a variety of uses and needs e.g. socialising, gardening, food-growing?

1.5. Affordability and long-term value

1.5.1. Has the development been designed to minimise living costs?

1.5.2. Have clear written targets been established for the design-life of key building elements?

1.5.3. Have the materials, detailing and construction of the scheme been developed to be robust, easy to maintain, replace and adapt for long-term use?

1.5.4. Has a maintenance and management plan been established that ensures that homes are maintained as a quality place to live in the long-term?

1.5.5. Have efficient and future-proof data connections been provided to all homes to support residents requirements e.g home working?

Hounslow is experiencing rapid population growth, its places are densifying, and its neighbourhoods need to balance the desire of many residents to live in low-density suburban locations with the pressures of an increasing population. Its places are highly varied, ranging from intense Zone 2 urban centres to looser, more suburban and rural environments to the west. Neighbourhoods in the Borough need to enable and support a good quality of life that is responsive to this evolving context.

Our neighbourhoods should feel part of Hounslow, answer the needs of our residents, and feel distinct to their specific part of the Borough. Their scale and character should be appropriate to their townscape context and to the diverse ways of life of Hounslow residents.

Our neighbourhoods should be thriving, interconnected and well-integrated places that provide the local amenities we need in the vicinity of our homes. They must be easy to navigate for all; legible, safe and clear in their layouts and organisation, with particular attention paid to the needs and safety of children, recognising that a child-friendly city is a better city for all.

2.1. Local identity and local need

2.1.1.  Does the development respond positively to the cultural, social and economic context of its location?

2.1.2.  Does the development deliver housing types and tenures that respond to specific local need?

2.1.3.  Have opportunities for innovative models of ownership and management been explored, e.g. Community Land Trusts?

2.1.4.  Are housing types and tenures integrated to avoid segregation and isolation and achieve a ‘tenure- blind’ development?

2.2. Architectural character

2.2.1. Have site constraints been clearly identified and has a coherent architectural approach been developed in response?

2.2.2. Has the design been informed by studies into successful surrounding typologies to respond to the site and the wider identity of the place, e.g. proportion, detail, materials, height, density?

2.2.3. Does the design consider any historic or heritage context, whether recognised in policy or otherwise?

2.2.4. Does the site layout incorporate existing topography, landscape features, water courses etc to create a locally distinctive design?

2.3. Appropriate density and uses

2.3.1. Is the proposal of an appropriate and economically-viable density that makes the most of available land whilst respecting the existing urban character and quality of life of residents?

2.3.2. Where appropriate, have non- residential uses been included which will support the vitality of the neighbourhood and respond to demand, e.g. community facilities, or commercial premises?

2.4. Permeability and connectivity

2.4.1. Is there a clear strategy for pedestrian movement within the development to give easy access to everyday amenities, including for children, older people and those with reduced mobility, e.g. post boxes, cycle storage, refuse bins?

2.4.2. Does the development include a strategy for vehicles and mobility aids to facilitate active travel for
a range of users, e.g. wheelchair, mobility scooter and cycle parking, storage and charging zones?

2.4.3. Do the proposed routes within the development help connections to the wider neighbourhood and city, e.g. proximity to key amenities, civic and cultural facilities, open spaces, transport connections?

2.4.4. Has consideration been given to eliminating barriers to movement, e.g. through appropriate use of drop kerbs and surface treatments?

2.5. Safe, child-friendly, inclusive development

2.5.1. Does the design provide dedicated and incidental spaces for children and young people to use?

2.5.2. Does the design promote 'independent mobility' for children and young people by making it safe and easy to move around?

2.5.3. Has personal security been considered in the design and layout of the homes, particularly at building entrances?

2.5.4. Does the scheme deliver places that are inclusive of all genders and protected characteristics?

2.5.5. Does the design of the development promote passive surveillance through active ground floors on all sides and/or non- residential uses?

2.5.6. Has resident security been considered in relation to the operation of building elements and systems e.g. restrictors on openable ground floor windows?

Hounslow is one of London’s most diverse Boroughs, with around 40% of residents born outside the UK, 188 languages spoken and an increasingly young population. Strategies to empower communities must be responsive to this particular context. The Council is working to enhance the way that engagement and community liaison works in the Borough.

Our communities should be empowered to help shape the creation of homes and neighbourhoods. Communication during the design and delivery stages should be clear, transparent and responsive, and offer meaningful engagement and genuine dialogue. Local communities should share the benefits of development, including through Community Wealth Building.

Our communities should be protagonists of the places in which they live in the long-term, and community stewardship of places and community activity should be encouraged and supported.

3.1. Embedded community wealth

3.1.1.  Does the development set out locally-relevant and appropriate Social Value commitments, with ambitious and deliverable targets?

3.1.2.  Have opportunities been taken to provide space within the development for community projects and programmes?

3.1.3.  Have opportunities been sought to provide shared facilities and amenities for residents, e.g. a communal laundry, hotdesking space, gardens, occasional-use guest bedrooms?

3.1.4.  Have opportunities been taken to build ‘community wealth’ by investing locally, including through purchasing & procurement?

3.1.5.  Have opportunities for local training and education been identified and delivered upon wherever possible?

3.2. Clear and transparent process

3.2.1. Has the engagement plan been clearly communicated to local residents, including when and how to input, when input will be used, and a schedule for updates?

3.2.2. Are local, accessible community facilities and infrastructure being used as engagement venues?

3.2.3. Does the engagement make use of any existing communication channels such as community groups or newsletters?

3.2.4. Is there a clear tracking system for public comments, recording how they influence proposals?

3.2.5. Has an evaluation method been put into place to assess the effectiveness of the engagement process and its impact?

3.3. Representative engagement

3.3.1.  Is there a clear community engagement plan for the development, built on a sound awareness of local stakeholders and community organisations?

3.3.2.  Is there a clear strategy to address any particular points of conflict or tension within the community that might have an impact on engagement outcomes?

3.3.3.  Are engagement sessions as inclusive and accessible as possible to residents, including their timing, location, and mix of in-person and digital engagement?

3.3.4.  Have opportunities been taken to innovate in digital/virtual engagement techniques?

3.4. Community stewardship

3.4.1. Has the engagement process identified social, civic or community infrastructure requirements, and considered these in developing proposals?

3.4.2. Does the development encourage residents and community groups to take ‘ownership’ of particular spaces or aspects of the development, and to contribute to their care and maintenance?

3.4.3. Have systems been put in place to integrate informal community stewardship of the development with formal maintenance and care processes, where appropriate?

3.5. Thinking and communicating long term

3.5.1. Does the engagement plan run throughout the design and construction of the development, including after handover, to support consistent communications in the long-term?

3.5.2. Is the engagement plan well- integrated with relevant wider or ongoing development and regeneration programmes in the vicinity, to support consistent cross- programme communication?

3.5.3. Have local residents been given a point of contact on the client/ design team, and are protocols in place for providing updates in the case of personnel changes during the project?

3.5.4. Do all proposed community facilities, amenities and spaces benefit from a clear strategy for how they will be used, maintained, and programmed for activity?

3.5.5. Is there a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) strategy in place, with clear timescales to assess resident well-being and a review system to allow findings to influence future developments?

Hounslow benefits from a wide variety of rich green and blue spaces and infrastructure, including notable gardens & landscapes and an extensive network of waterways. It is a ‘green’ Borough but we want it to be greener still, tackling challenges such as air quality and storm water run-off. Housing and neighbourhoods should feature high quality public and shared spaces that contribute to the improvement of Hounslow’s wider public realm and environment.

Our shared spaces, both internal and external, play a vital role in the quality of our housing, and should offer safe, inclusive, high quality places in which public life can thrive. They must balance a range of vital, and sometimes conflicting, uses and needs, as well as providing space for the diverse communities of Hounslow. Equilibrium needs to be found between space to move and space to pause, space for biodiversity, play and sociability.

4.1. Engaging and robust public realm

4.1.1.  Is there accessible outdoor space that all residents can enjoy within close proximity of their home?

4.1.2.  Are public and private spaces clearly defined with areas that can benefit the wider community e.g. open green space that isn’t locked?

4.1.3.  Does the landscape design include a mixture of hard and soft surfaces that promote biodiversity whilst minimising ongoing maintenance?

4.1.4.  Are streets within the development designed to encourage low vehicle speeds, allowing them to better function as social spaces?

4.1.5.  Have the public spaces been designed to promote the safety and perceptions of safety of all users, with a particular emphasis on safety for women and girls?

4.1.6.  Does the design of public and shared space allow for active and passive leisure activities that promote social interactions between residents, e.g. food growing and gardening?

4.2. Biodiverse landscapes

4.2.1. Have opportunities been taken to incorporate existing habitats and vegetation, including trees?

4.2.2. Does the development improve the biodiversity of the local area in a way that is particular to local need and environmental character?

4.2.3. Have appropriate tree species, types and maturities been selected through consultation with maintenance teams?

4.2.4. Has a robust, realistic maintenance plan been established for plants, trees and soft landscaping?

4.2.5. Does the external lighting strategy minimise light pollution and disruption to habitats and species?

4.3. Play space for all

4.3.1. Is there an appropriate mix of dedicated and well-integrated incidental play space on-site as part of the development for children of different ages?

4.3.2. Does the public realm enable and support sport or exercise at a convenient distance from homes?

4.3.3. Has provision for sport been considered within public and shared spaces?

4.3.4. Does the public realm account for the leisure and social needs of teenagers, older children and older people of varying mobilities, as well as for young children and adults?

4.4. Sustainable movement and active travel

4.4.1.  Does the design support access to public transport?

4.4.2.  Does the development prioritise and promote active travel - walking, wheeling and cycling - including through well-designed routes, spaces and facilities?

4.4.3.  Is car parking designed such that it does not dominate the public realm whilst being conveniently located near homes, particularly accessible (Part M4 3) homes?

4.5. Climate resilient landscapes

4.5.1. Has a site-specific strategy for flood risk and water management been developed to integrate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems into both landscapes and buildings?

4.5.2. Has the public space been designed to reduce the urban heat island effect and to provide shade for people and buildings?

4.5.3. Does hard and soft landscaping reduce air and noise pollution wherever possible, e.g. green buffers, low vehicle speed roads, air cleaning planting?

When Hounslow declared a climate emergency in 2019, it acknowledged that the impacts of climate breakdown are already causing serious damage around the world. The Hounslow Climate Emergency Action Plan, published in 2020, sets out actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of Global Warming and climate breakdown. The energy consumed by homes in Hounslow currently accounts for around one third of the Borough’s total annual territorial carbon dioxide emissions. Minimising whole-life carbon dioxide emissions must therefore be a fundamental consideration in the refurbishment and maintenance of existing homes and the delivery of new homes, particularly given the anticipated scale of regeneration in the Borough.

Our buildings must aim to attain the highest possible standards of energy efficiency to minimise in-use carbon dioxide emissions, with ‘fabric first’, passive, and accessible design solutions prioritised. Our buildings should also be built and maintained using materials and construction processes that minimise embodied carbon.

Residents should be supported in their efforts to live in energy-efficient and low-impact ways. Our buildings and open spaces must be resilient to the changing climate and have a positive environmental impact on the neighbourhoods of which they are a part.

5.1. Whole-life carbon

5.1.1.  Is the project targeting net- zero whole-life carbon dioxide emissions, including operational carbon and embodied carbon?

5.1.2.  Has sustainability expertise been appointed to the project early in the design process and is there a strategy to regularly review the performance targets delivered during design and construction, e.g. whole-life carbon assessment?

5.1.3.  Have all opportunities to re-use or retrofit existing buildings been considered as an effective strategy to reduce embodied carbon?

5.1.4.  Do designs and strategies prioritise the re-use and reclamation of materials prior to recycling or fabricating new materials?

5.1.5.  Is a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) strategy in place to assess the energy performance of the new homes in use?

5.1.6.  Is there a clear strategy for M&E commissioning and handover to make sure that the mechanical systems are operated as efficiently as possible?

5.2. Passive environmental design

5.2.1. Have clear, ambitious energy efficiency standards for the project been agreed at an early stage to reduce operational carbon dioxide emissions e.g. LETI, Passivhaus?

5.2.2. Has a 'fabric first' approach been taken and has the form factor been optimised to minimise heat loss?

5.2.3. Has the orientation of buildings been optimised to maximise passive solar gain?

5.2.4. Is a low-carbon heating strategy incorporated in the scheme?

5.2.5. Has overheating been considered and have passive cooling strategies been prioritised?

5.3. On-site renewable energy

5.3.1. Is there a clear strategy for on site renewable energy generation?

5.3.2. Has an appropriate mix of renewable energy sources been incorporated in the design to maximise on-site energy production during different conditions and times of day?

5.3.3. Has a centralised energy storage solution been explored to maximise the amount of energy generated on-site?

5.4. Simplicity in use

5.4.1. Does the development incorporate a future-proofed approach to the provision of data infrastructure?

5.4.2. Have internal stakeholders, such as asset management teams, been engaged on building maintenance?

5.4.3. Is there a waste and recycling strategy in place that includes appropriately sized storage within the home and communal stores that are close to homes and easily accessed by refuse operatives?

5.4.4. Are the building systems, including the heating, ventilation and cooling systems, digitally inclusive and intuitive for residents to run and economical to maintain?

5.4.5. Is there a clear handover process to ensure that residents, landlords and housing management teams know how to use building systems?

5.5. Circularity and durability

5.5.1. Have circular economy Principless been considered in the design and in the selection of materials, components and equipment?

5.5.2. Has the full life cycle of the materials and components been considered in assessment of whole- life carbon dioxide emissions?

5.5.3. Is there a strategy to minimise construction waste-to-landfill?