Appeal 6000417

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council’s decision notice consists of four reasons for refusal, relating to: loss of employment space, the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers and highway safety. However, as part of the appeal process the appellant has submitted additional information seeking to address the highway safety matters. This has been reviewed by the Council who, in their statement of case, are satisfied that these matters are addressed. I have no reason to form a different view. As a result, I will focus on the matters of loss of employment space and living conditions.

The main issues are 1) the effect of the proposed development on the provision of industrial floorspace with regard to development plan policy, 2) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of nos. 9, 11 and [address] with regard to outlook and light, and 3) whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for its future occupants with regard to size, amenity space provision, outlook and light.

The appeal site comprises of a former motor garage which has been vacant since 2023 which had previously been used for the servicing and maintenance of vehicles.

Policy EA(a) of the Greenwich Local Plan (2014) seeks to protect industrial floorspace. The policy outlines that non-employment uses will only be acceptable if the site is environmentally or physically unsuitable for any employment generating use, has been marketed on a fair price and terms for at least two years indicating that there is no realistic prospect of any form of employment arising or that employment is only viable within a mixed-use scheme. This is also supported by Policy E2 of the London Plan (2021) which outlines that B use class spaces should demonstrate there is no reasonable prospect of the site being in continued use and ensure that an equivalent amount of B use class space is re-provided.

In considering the above criteria the appellant has not provided any marketing information or details outlining that the unit has been advertised. The related criteria does go on to refer to other alternative employment generating use, which the development fulfils, but this is an additional consideration if the marketing evidence is accepted.

In addition, I also acknowledge the sizes of other employment sites adjacent to the development provided by the appellant and how the proposal would be similar to these. However, simply the presence of the other smaller employment units is not sufficient justification for the reduction in size at the appeal site.

I acknowledge the information provided by the appellant as to why the site is no longer physically suitable for employment generating uses which would satisfy exception ii of Policy EA(a) given the surrounding context of the site. Whilst this is noted in the absence of information satisfying the remaining criterion, I identify that harm is still present relating to the conflict with the development plan.

I conclude that the development has an unacceptable effect on the provision of industrial floorspace with regard to development plan policy. Hence, it does not comply with [name](a) or E2 in particular due to the lack of robust marketing evidence.

As part of the appeal proposals the creation of two new dwellings is proposed to the rear of the site. The appellant describes each unit as, two-bedroom, four storey units with accompanying private amenity space which will directly abut the properties on [address] to the rear.

The proposals would result in the erection of a three-storey dwelling directly adjacent to the rear boundary of No.[address]. As part of the appellant’s evidence submitted with the appeal, they have included a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshading Assessment for the properties neighbouring the appeal site. The assessment identified the [name] (VSC) percentage of each window to identify the amount of skylight experienced as well as the [name] of [name] (APSH) and an overshadowing assessment. [name].11 the VSC percentage for all windows was identified as being reduced by the proposed development and whilst I note that the VSC percentage as existing is below the 27% guidance of good outlook and light, this in itself is not justification for a reduction. Turning to the APSH levels for windows 01, 02, 04 and 05 these all fail to meet the 371.5 hours a year for summer and 74.3 hours a year for winter significantly in both the existing and proposed scenarios. I do not consider this a justification for the result of a poorer level of outlook, light and sunlight as a result of the proposed development. I therefore consider living conditions for the occupants of No.11 to be harmed by the proposed development.

In the case of No.[address], the reduction in VSC values to windows 3 and 6 is considerable with both windows. In addition, the level of sunlight received year-round to both windows would be below the acceptable BRE level following the development. As a result, I consider that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.15 in regard to outlook, light and sunlight experienced.

[name].[address], the changes to both VSC percentage and APSH value of the rear windows would be minimal as a result of the proposals. Taking this into account as well as my observations onsite I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.9 in regard to outlook, light and sunlight experienced.

Having regard to the levels of sunlight that would remain, as set out in the assessment, I find that the development would not cause an unacceptable impact on living conditions as it relates to the sunlight to the amenity spaces.

Whilst the proposal would not harm the living conditions of [address], for the above reasons the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 11 and [address] with specific regard to outlook and light. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5, DH1 and DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), which amongst other things seeks that development should not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight, sunlight or privacy they enjoy or result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure.

There is a dispute between the parties regarding the number of bedrooms at the proposed dwellings with the Council stating that the Reception/[name] is considered capable of being used as a third bedroom. From the information before me and given the ground floor rooms size, I do not consider this to be an unreasonable conclusion that the room could be capable of being occupied as an additional bedroom and have considered the proposals on this basis.

The Council has highlighted concerns regarding the outlook and light experienced from the ground floor ‘Reception/[name] of both proposed dwellings where it would face onto their private amenity spaces respectively. Due to the narrow width of the proposed amenity spaces, the main outlook received from these rooms would be of the boundary treatment and four-storey dwelling opposite which would dominate occupant’s views in both cases. This visual dominance would obscure the outlook from these windows to the detriment of the living conditions of its users. The amount of light experienced to these rooms is also likely to be impacted by the proximity of the respective four storey dwellings and I have no information before me to indicate otherwise.

The proposed outdoor amenity area for both the proposed dwellings would be in the form of two small, enclosed private areas surrounded on all four of their respective sides. I concur with the Council’s conclusion that both dwellings, due to their size, could be family homes. Policy H5 of the local plan requires that family housing should normally have direct access to a private garden. The supporting text sets out that a minimum garden area of 50m2 should be provided in houses with up to three bedrooms. The provision in the proposed development of 21m2 would fall significantly short of this amount and I have not been presented with sufficient reasoning why a departure from this amount would be justified. I therefore consider that there would be unacceptable living conditions for future occupants in terms of poor-quality outdoor amenity space.

The Council initially expressed concern in relation to the ceiling heights that would be delivered across the development. This is in the context of Policy D6 of the London Plan, which requires that a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres is provided for at least 75% of the gross internal floor area (GIA). Sectional drawings, which were not provided as part of the original submission but have subsequently been considered by the Council during the appeal, show that a floor to ceiling height of a minimum 2.5 metres would be provided for at least 75% of the GIA and thus comply with the policy and the delivery of acceptable living conditions in this regard.

I have also had regard to the concerns of the Council regarding the impact on the availability of natural light and outlook to the users of Bedroom 2 to both dwellings. However, in both cases the bedroom is served by two reasonably sized rooflights which, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied would provide adequate natural light and outlook for occupiers of these rooms.

Turning to the kitchens of each dwelling which are served by windows with privacy louvres which would face onto the respective amenity spaces and the opposing dwelling. Considering the kitchens’ position on the first floor in an elevated position I consider the amount of light and outlook received by these to be acceptable and have nothing before me to indicate otherwise.

Whilst the proposal would provide adequate head height, outlook and light levels to some rooms for future occupiers, for the above reasons the proposed development would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupants with regard to light, outlook, internal space and external amenity space. As a result it would fail to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5, DH1 and DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), the [name] – [name] (2015) and the [name] (2016) which amongst other things seeks to safeguard the amenity for existing and future occupiers.

The evidence outlines that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The development would, however, conflict with policies designed to ensure there is not unacceptable harm to living conditions and that good living conditions are provided for future occupants. These policies are consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of ensuring good standards of amenity. This alignment increases the weight given to the policy conflict. Therefore, the conflict with these policies results in the development conflicting with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework requires that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, developments should be granted planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to, amongst other things, securing well-designed places.

This applies to applications involving the provision of housing in situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, it therefore follows that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of the proposed development, the starting point is therefore that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In this case the adverse impacts of the proposal in terms of the harm with regard to the living conditions of future occupants would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. These policies include a requirement for developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the Framework.

The Framework refers to significantly boosting the supply of housing. The creation of two dwellings would make a small contribution to increasing that supply. The site is also in a location which hosts a range of services and key facilities. Upon completion and subsequent occupation, future occupiers would also provide economic benefits to the local area once the development would be complete through their use of local shops and services. The use of a brownfield site for development also weighs in favour of the scheme. These benefits are factors that weigh to a modest degree in the scheme’s favour.

Aside from the loss of industrial floorspace, the development is of economic benefit as it has the potential to create a not insignificant number of employee roles during the operational period. No doubt the development also contributes favourably to the local economy during its operation, and also through construction.

Both the benefits of bringing the building back in to use and the economic benefits attract some support from the Framework. However, such support is not uncaveated, in particular as the Framework also concerns itself more broadly with building a strong and competitive economy, where industrial floorspace is also a valid consideration. The Framework is also concerned with the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers. I do not therefore consider there is overall compliance.

In relation to how the Council dealt with the planning application, I have considered the totality of the evidence before me, including that of the appellant and other parties. As such, there is not unfairness in my decision. Interested parties have also raised a number of other matters and concerns. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, they do not alter my overall conclusion and have therefore not had a significant bearing on my decision.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The outcome of the Framework paragraph 11 d) process above indicates that the decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan.

In addition, the development also has an unacceptable effect on the provision of industrial floorspace with regard to development plan policy. As this goes to the heart of how the Local Plan seeks to protect industrial floorspace, it attracts significant weight against the development. With the conflict with the Local Plan policies that I have identified, the development also conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The proposed development would result in a small increase in the Council’s overall housing number and would also bring a number of additional residents to the area who would contribute to the local economy. When combined with the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply collectively, I give these matters significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

However, the adverse impacts of the proposed development in regard to the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupants as well as the loss of industrial floorspace attracts greater significant weight that outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that arise do not outweigh the harm caused by the development. For these reasons, I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.