Appeal 6000636

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025 the Government published a consultation 'Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system', together with an accompanying [name]. The proposed reforms are draft and therefore may be subject to change. The consultation is ongoing, and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not constitute Government policy. Overall, insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, there is little change to the direction of the Framework, and I have therefore treated the consultation draft with limited weight and made my decision with regard to the current Framework.

The Council raises no concern over the proposed single storey rear extension and based on my observations at the site visit and the evidence provided, I have no reason to take a different view. The main issues in dispute are: • the effect of the proposal on the provision of family sized accommodation; and • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupants with regard to private outdoor amenity space for the first floor flat.

Number [site address] is a mid-terraced dwelling located within a predominantly residential area characterised by Victorian terraced properties. The houses are typically set back from the highway behind small, enclosed front gardens. The locality demonstrates a coherent pattern of development, with consistent building lines and narrow plot sizes that collectively contribute to the area’s established residential character.

The appeal proposal would convert the existing three-bedroom dwelling house into two self-contained one-bedroom flats. Policy H(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan, [name] with [name] (2014) (GLP) relates to conversions and sets out in (i) that the subdivision of a terraced residential property will not be permitted where the original premises is less than 130sqm of net floor area. The policy seeks to retain small and medium sized terraced properties for family sized accommodation in areas of conversion pressure and due to the greater difficulty of providing an acceptable standard of conversion for terraced properties.

There is no dispute between the parties that the quantum of existing floor area falls below the required threshold. However, the Council states that the figure is 108sqm, whereas the appellant contends that it falls ‘marginally below’ the required threshold at approximately 110sqm. Nevertheless, having regard to these findings and the proposed floor plans, I find that the original dwelling house floorspace would fall significantly below the policy requirement of 130sqm of net floor area and is therefore in conflict with Policy H(b)(i).

The appellant also claims that the proposal meets the other two policy criteria within Policy H(b) of the GLP, relating to the impact on on-street parking provision and the character and appearance of the area. [name] find no harm in respect of these matters, Policy H(b) of the GLP clearly sets out that proposals for the subdivision of a residential property will not be permitted where any of the circumstances in the required criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) are not met. From the evidence before me, I find that the floorspace shortfall is substantial and the proposal would result in the loss of three-bedroom family accommodation, which the policy seeks to protect.

Furthermore, as the proposal would provide two self-contained one-bedroom flats, it would not offer compensatory provision for the loss of family-sized accommodation (three bedrooms or above) and would therefore fail to satisfy the objectives of the policy. Although the proposal is not in conflict with the additional six policy criteria listed in Policy H(b) of the GLP, relating to matters such as safe and secure access, these are further considerations to be applied after the principle of the subdivision of the property has been established through compliance with all of the first three circumstances listed in the policy.

Whilst the evidence refers to the benefits of providing accessible accommodation for older people, the description of development does not indicate any form of specialist provision, nor has any mechanism been suggested to ensure that the accommodation would be restricted to such use. I also find that the narrow access and hallway within the property, in addition to the stairway serving the first floor flat, would not lend itself to accessible or appropriate provision.

Accordingly, I therefore conclude that the subdivision of the dwelling house into two self-contained one-bedroom flats, would result in the loss of family sized accommodation and, as such, would conflict with the provisions in Policy H(b) of the GLP that seek to prevent such an occurrence.

Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) states that where there are no higher local standards in the borough Development Plan Documents, a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for one to two person dwellings and an extra 1sqm should be provided for each additional occupant. Policy H5 of the GLP requires residential flat conversions to provide a good-sized balcony, a terrace or enclosed communal garden. This is consistent with the provisions of strategic Policy DH1 of the GLP which requires all residential development to meet the requirements of Policy H5. As such, the private outdoor space requirements within Policy D6 of the LP are relevant in the consideration of this matter, where 5sqm is required for each residential unit proposed.

There is no dispute regarding the ground floor flat, which would have direct access to the existing rear garden of the property and constitutes appropriate external provision. However, the first floor flat would not have access to any private outdoor amenity space provision. The appellant states that there is no realistic scope to provide a balcony or terrace to the property, without adversely affecting the uniformity of the terrace or compromising neighbour privacy. In exceptional circumstances, where site constraints make it impossible to provide private open space for all residential units, the Mayor of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) (SPG) advises 1that additional internal living space equivalent to the area of the private open space requirement can be added to the minimum gross internal area. Whilst the appellant finds the proposed first floor flat exceeds the [name] - [name] (2015) by 3sqm, the Council find the figure to be 2sqm. Nevertheless, having regard to these findings and the proposed floor plans, I find that the first floor flat would fall below the 5sqm required under the exceptional circumstances set out in the SPG. Whilst the SPG does not have the status of policy, this document is an important material consideration, and I have attached the conflict with the guidance significant weight.

The appellant has drawn my attention to Charlton Park and states that this is within walking distance of the appeal site. However, I find that this area of public open space is a considerable walking distance from the appeal site and does not compensate for the lack of appropriate private outdoor amenity space for the proposed first floor flat.

The appellant has referred to ‘The Supporting Housing’ Supplementary Planning Guidance in their evidence and ‘The Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions’ Supplementary Planning Document (2016) ([name]). The Council did not cite either document in its reason for refusal relating to open space provision and notes that the [name] was superseded by the Council’s Urban Design Guide in 2023. I therefore attach limited weight to these documents in reaching my decision. 1 Mayor of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016), ‘[name], Standard 26, para 2.3.32.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable living conditions for its future occupants with regard to private outdoor amenity space for the first floor flat. This is contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policy H5 and DH1 of the GLP which seek to secure appropriate outdoor amenity space provision in residential development.

I am aware of the representation made by an interested party concerning the potential loss of daylight and sunlight to their home and garden. However, the massing of the proposed single storey extension is such that it would not adversely impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, nor would it undermine established planting in neighbouring gardens.

Furthermore, had I been minded to allow the appeal, matters relating to drainage, noise and sound insulation, refuse and recycling storage and its relationship to the ground floor flat’s living room/ kitchen, together with boundary fencing details, could have been dealt with via planning condition. I also find no harm in respect of the ground floor ‘middle room’, which is identified as a prayer room in the evidence provided and whose small, constrained size does not lend itself to use as a bedroom.

Interested parties have additionally raised concerns regarding increased parking demand, car traffic and pollution. Given the existing residential use of the property, the limited scale of the proposal, and the absence of substantive evidence to show there would be harm arising from the development, I do not consider that the proposal would be problematic in this respect.

The Council advises that their residential land supply indicates that the authority is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a supply figure of 2.38 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework indicates that in such situations, where the requisite land supply does not exist, permission should be granted 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.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards addressing the housing shortfall and it would do so on a brownfield site within the urban area and in a location which has good access to services and facilities, including public transport. Against these benefits, and the temporary economic benefits arising during construction, I must weigh the harms of the loss of family sized accommodation at the property and the living conditions for its future occupants with regard to private outdoor amenity space. I find the magnitude of harm would be significant in this context. The adverse impact identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit of one additional residential unit.

Consequently, the adverse impact of the proposal’s loss of family sized accommodation and living conditions for its future occupants would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit of one additional residential unit when assessed against the policies in the Framework and this would bring the scheme into conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. There are no material considerations of such strength as to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.