Appeal 6000445

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development above from the planning application form as there is no evidence before me that suggests a change to the description was agreed to by the appellant.

I noted during my site visit that the change of use had already occurred and both the ground floor and first floor spaces were occupied as two one-bedroom self-contained flats. I will deal with the appeal accordingly.

An amended drawing was submitted with the appeal that highlighted the presence of an existing ground floor paved area to the rear of the ground floor space which I witnessed during my site visit. However, this is not included in the red line boundary on the submitted location plan. The amended drawing also proposed the provision of additional external amenity space at first floor level in the form of a rear balcony. Given the close relationship between the proposed balcony and neighbouring properties, I find that consultation on such a change would be required. As such, I am unable to take the amended drawing into account, and I will assess the appeal on the basis of the drawings that were before the Council at the time it made its decision.

The Council highlight that a juliette balcony at first floor level and a ground floor window, both in the rear elevation were not granted as part of the previously approved scheme. Nevertheless, these features were included on the ‘proposed’ drawings submitted with the planning application that were subject to the Council’s decision. I also noted that these features were present on site, during my visit. As such I have considered these elements of the scheme through my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the availability of employment space within the area; and • whether the development provides adequate living conditions for occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight.

Policy EA(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 30th July 2014 (LP) seeks to maximise the contribution to employment in [name] from sites in existing or previous employment use. It states that non employment uses will only be permitted on vacant employment sites where it can be demonstrated that, the site is environmentally or physically unsuitable for any employment generating use; or marketing on fair price and terms for at least two years indicates there is no realistic prospect of any form of employment arising.

It is asserted that site constraints including, the limited size of the office spaces, vehicles being unable to stop and park at the site given its location on the main road and the shift towards hybrid and remote working mean that there is no demand for the appeal site as an employment use. Whilst it may not suit all enterprises, there is no compelling evidence before me that the site is environmentally or physically unsuitable for any employment generating use.

Marketing reports prepared by three different property agents were submitted with the appeal which identified that marketing had been carried out for the appeal site as a commercial space between January 2020 and July 2022. The evidence states that whilst there were enquiries and viewings of the property, there were no offers received. However, there is no information provided on the price that the appeal site was marketed at neither is there any evidence of comparative sites or other information identifying whether the price was fair in this case. Consequently, there is insufficient information before me to confirm that the appeal site has been marketed at a fair price.

In conclusion, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the development would not have a harmful effect on the availability of employment space within the area. The development is therefore contrary to LP Policy EA(a), the aims of which are set out above. The development also conflicts with Policy EA1 of the LP which seeks, amongst other things, that economic development is supported.

The Council also refer to Policy E2 of The London Plan March 2021 (TLP), however, this refers to business spaces in areas identified in a local Development Plan Document (DPD) where there is a shortage of lower-cost space or workspace of particular types, uses or sizes. I am not referred to any relevant DPD in this regard and it is therefore not directly applicable to the case before me.

The Council contend that both flats do not have suitable outdoor amenity space and refer to the standards set out in Policy D6 of TLP and the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance March 2016 (SPG) which both state that a minimum of [address] metres of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings and that it should achieve a minimum width and depth of 1.5 metres.

As stated above, I witnessed a door in the rear elevation of the ground floor bedroom which was adjacent to an existing paved area, nevertheless, this external area is not included in the appeal site as defined by the red line boundary. Consequently, it is not clear that it would be a private space serving only the ground floor unit.

The first floor has access to a balcony on the front elevation which has a floor area of [address] metres. However, the depth of the balcony is less than 1.5 metres and is therefore restricted in terms of its useability. As a result, I do not find that it provides an acceptable level of outdoor amenity space. The appellant asserts that occupants can utilise the communal outdoor space associated with [address], nevertheless, this does not appear easily accessible from the first floor flat.

The Council highlights that the SPG states that in exceptional circumstances where site constraints make it impossible to provide private open space for all dwellings, a proportion may instead have additional living space equivalent to the area of the private open space requirement. However, based on the evidence before me, whilst the floor area provided in each flat would meet the requirements of Policy D6 of TLP in terms of internal space, neither flat would provide sufficient additional internal floor space to meet this exception.

As the outdoor space to the rear of the ground floor unit is not included in the appeal site boundary, it is not clear what the immediate outlooks from the bedroom are in terms of whether that space is private or not. Nevertheless, in addition to a tall boundary wall to the rear, there are much taller buildings located on all three sides surrounding the rear of the appeal site which does provide a feeling of being enclosed when looking out of both bedroom windows.

The ground floor bedroom window did not feel substantially overlooked, given the presence of the tall boundary wall surrounding the rear outdoor space and the difference in the ground levels to the rear. However, the first floor bedroom window did feel more significantly overlooked, given the raised level of this bedroom compared to the ground floor and the presence of the windows in the block of flats a limited distance to the rear. The appellant asserts that privacy can be adequately protected by the existing blinds, but I consider that using this as a method to prevent overlooking could limit the outlook from the window.

The ground floor living space has a large area of glazing which runs almost along the full width of the room. However, this glazing is located at the back edge of the pavement, meaning that there would be direct views into the main living space from pedestrian viewpoints if the glazing were clear. This would have a harmful effect on privacy. I witnessed on site that along with an obscure glazing treatment to the windows, which I understand is a temporary film which can be removed, when inside the flat the blinds were fully drawn at the time of my site visit in the mid-morning. Whilst the space did not feel unduly dark, it meant there was very limited outlook from the living space. I am not provided with any specific details of how the blinds would protect privacy whilst also providing sufficient outlook. I therefore find that the outlook from the living space is significantly compromised by trying to avoid detrimental impacts on privacy.

The first floor kitchen does not benefit from any window and is limited in size. The door arrangement and position to the rear of the flat mean that it does not feel part of the wider open plan living space. As such, the outlooks from this room are significantly constrained.

The appellant has submitted a Sunlight and [name] which states that it was undertaken in accordance with the [name] 209, Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice (third edition, 2022). The assessment states that all four rooms assessed meet or exceed the BRE guideline values for daylight. It also states that both bedrooms would receive some exposure to sunlight, which would adhere to the BRE guidelines. There is no evidence before me which disputes these findings.

In conclusion, both bedrooms are acceptable in terms of the provision of daylight and sunlight. However, I find that insufficient outdoor amenity space has been demonstrated. In addition, the cumulative impact of the hindered outlook from both bedrooms, the first floor kitchen and the ground floor living space and the more limited level of privacy afforded to the first floor bedroom is unacceptable.

Consequently, I find that the development is harmful to the living conditions of occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook and privacy. The development is therefore contrary to Policy D6 of TLP and Policies H5 and DH1 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, that housing developments are of a high quality design that provide comfortable and functional layouts and sufficient private outside spaces. The development is also at odds with the SPG which seeks that habitable rooms within each dwelling are provided with an adequate level of privacy.

The appeal site is located within the [name] and Bowater Conservation Area (CA). Part of the significance of the CA is derived from the range of different buildings that demonstrate a connection to the industrial heritage of the area and the [name]. The existing building is relatively modern, although it is sited adjacent to the locally listed former [address]. However, given the limited external changes and the position of them to the rear of the building, the development has a neutral effect on the significance of the CA.

I have found that the development is contrary to the policies set out above because it has not been demonstrated that the development does not harmfully affect the availability of employment space in the area. I have also found that it fails to provide adequate living conditions for occupants with regard to outdoor amenity space, privacy and outlooks. The development is therefore contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply with the current supply standing at 2.03 years. Consequently, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

The appeal site would contribute two flats to the housing supply in an existing urban area where there is access to services and facilities, which would have some social and economic benefits, which would accord with the Framework, particularly given the current housing land supply position. Nevertheless, given the scale of the development these benefits would be limited.

I find that the harms I have set out above would be significant and would conflict with paragraphs 85 and 135 of the Framework which state that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity and that developments should have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

A lack of harm to heritage assets or local character and policy compliance in terms of the provision of cycle and bin storage are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the development.

I therefore find that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that permission should not be granted.

The development conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. I have found no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.