Appeal 6000972

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision notice as the description in the appellant’s application form included no specific acts of development.

I have considered the appeal on its own merits. Whether work that may, or may not, be associated with the proposal has already been caried out is not material to my conclusions one way or another.

The main issues are whether: • The living conditions for future occupiers would meet acceptable standards. • The sub-division of the single dwellinghouse is appropriate. • Acceptable provision can be made for waste and cycle storage. • The proposal would satisfactorily mitigate the transport impacts of the development and promote sustainable modes of transportation.

The appellant does not dispute the analysis in the LPA officer’s report of how the proposal compares to the minimum space standards set out in Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (LLP). The standards within LP Policy D6 refer to housing developments and LLP Policy H5 refers to conversions as well as new build. The proposal is for a sub-division of an existing building and given the purpose of these policies is to secure a good standard of accommodation, I see no reason for them not to be applied in this case.

This being the case, the lower ground/ground floor unit falls considerably below the minimum floorspace standard, with a deficit also in lower ground floor to ceiling height. The first-floor unit would fall more marginally short of the space standard but relies on an absence of built in storage to do so. The second-floor unit is similar, with the addition of floor to ceiling height falling very slightly below the standards.

Furthermore, the lower ground floor level bedroom has very limited opportunities for outlook and the only daylight is received through a lightwell. This would not create a pleasant living environment for users of the bedroom space.

The claimed grant of planning permission for use of the lower ground floor and second floor rooms as habitable accommodation in connection with the single dwellinghouse is of limited relevance, in circumstances where the property is proposed to be sub-divided and the planning impacts for future occupants may, therefore, be different.

The benefit of attempting to re-provide accommodation that might be more suitable for a family is significantly reduced as the unit concerned falls well short of the required space standard and includes a bedroom with a lack of outlook and limited access to daylight.

Taking a holistic view of living conditions for future occupiers, while some aspects of the proposal fall only marginally short of the required standards, other elements fall considerably below. While conversion of existing buildings frequently involves some trade-offs to allow for delivery of new homes, in this case the cumulative outcome is a failure to provide acceptable living standards for future occupants.

For these reasons, the living conditions for future occupiers would not meet acceptable standards. There is conflict with the development plan, specifically LLP Policies Q2 and H5 and LP Policy D6, which collectively aim to secure an acceptable standard of accommodation.

Neither party has presented reasonably conclusive evidence on the size of the dwellinghouse as originally constructed. Regardless, even if the size of the dwelling were over the threshold in part A to LLP Policy H6 (H6A), part B (H6B) would still apply. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not provide high quality accommodation and would not meet the standards in LLP Policy H5. As such, there is conflict with LLP Policy H6.

The sub-division of the single dwellinghouse is not appropriate. There is conflict with the development plan for the area, specifically LLP Policy H6, which sets out that residential conversions may be acceptable where the development provides high quality accommodation that accords with requirements set out in the policy.

The plans do not include details of waste and cycle storage. Generally, these are matters that are usually capable of being addressed by condition. However, in this case, given the constraints of the site, I am not satisfied on the basis of the information provided that there is a reasonable likelihood that satisfactory provision can be made. My concerns are deepened by the potential for poorly located storage to exacerbate the living conditions issues relating to the lower ground floor bedroom discussed above.

Acceptable provision cannot be made for waste and cycle storage. As such, there is conflict with the development plan, specifically LLP Policies Q12 and Q13 and LP Policy T5, which require adequate waste and cycle storage to be planned into development.

The policy and practical basis for the LPA’s stated requirement for a S106 legal agreement securing obligations aimed at promoting sustainable transport modes and managing the transport effects of the development is not well explained. In any event, the appellant has provided no such agreement to consider. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude on whether an agreement would meet the relevant policy and legal tests. However, as I intend to dismiss the appeal for other reasons, concluding on this issue serves no real purpose in any event. Nor would it be expedient to return to the parties on this issue.

For these reasons, and on the basis of the above, I am unable to conclude on whether the proposal would satisfactory mitigate the transport impacts of the proposal and promote sustainable modes of transportation. For the avoidance of doubt, as it makes no difference to the outcome of the appeal, I have excluded this issue from my final planning balance.

In their grounds of appeal statement, the appellant asserts that the LPA has failed to meet its housing delivery targets. The LPA has not disputed this point directly. Even if the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, if the development was completed in accordance with the plans, it is my view that living conditions for occupiers would not be of an acceptable standard. The development would result in a net gain of 2 dwellings, making a very minor contribution to housing delivery and the harm would outweigh this benefit.

The living conditions for future occupiers would not meet acceptable standards, the sub-division of the single dwellinghouse is not appropriate, and acceptable provision cannot be made for waste and cycle storage. There is development plan conflict arising from these issues that amounts to conflict with the plan as a whole.

The proposal would deliver two additional housing units in a sustainable location. While modest in number, this would assist in delivering on local and London wide housing ambitions, as well as supporting the objective in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of significantly boosting the supply of housing. I also acknowledge the contribution that small and medium sized sites can make to overall housing delivery. The weight to be attributed to this benefit is no more than modest, as it is reduced by the substandard nature of the accommodation proposed.

Neither party has provided detailed evidence on the LPA’s housing supply and delivery position. Even if the position were to trigger consideration of paragraph 11d of the NPPF, the balance of adverse impacts and benefits would result in a position where the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As such, the presumption at NPPF paragraph 11 does not apply.

The development conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.