Appeal 6001041

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development reflects the substance of the proposal as described in the planning application form, albeit reordered for clarity.

The main issues are: a) The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers and neighbouring residents, with particular regard to privacy, natural light, ventilation, overlooking and noise. b) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. c) Whether the proposal would make adequate provision for sustainable travel and avoid harmful transport impacts, with particular regard to cycle parking and measures to manage car use.

The Council does not dispute that the proposed flats would comply with the [name] (NDSS). However, meeting minimum floor areas does not, on its own, ensure good living conditions. Policies Q2 and H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) require development to provide high-quality accommodation, including adequate outlook, privacy, light and internal amenity. The Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) ([name]) provides guidance on the implementation of these requirements.

The property is over four floors and forms part of a continuous residential terrace. The Council’s concern relates primarily to the lower ground floor unit (Flat 1), particularly privacy, outlook, natural light/ventilation and noise and disturbance.

The front bedroom is a habitable room and therefore requires an adequate standard of outlook and privacy. The bay window would sit noticeably below pavement level, and its outlook would be confined largely to the lightwell enclosure and the inset plinth proposed for bin storage resulting in a limited and constrained outlook.

Given the proximity to the street and the access steps serving the upper flats, there would be some perception of overlooking from passers-by. However, this relationship is characteristic of lower ground floor accommodation within the terrace, and I observed that similar properties employ blinds and curtains to manage privacy. The likely use of such measures would not materially worsen what is already a constrained outlook.

Whilst the outlook would be less than ideal, I do not find that it would be so oppressive or confined as to render the room unacceptable. Nevertheless, it is a qualitative shortcoming which attracts limited weight.

The enclosed kitchen would measure approximately 8sqm and would not benefit from natural light. The Housing SPG refers to “kitchen/diners” when addressing expectations for natural light. Here, the plans show a clearly separate and adequately sized living/dining room, and the kitchen is arranged as a discrete ancillary space. Although a small table could be introduced, its layout and relationship to the principal living area indicate that it would function as a kitchen rather than as a habitable room. The SPG’s expectations regarding natural light therefore do not directly apply. Whilst natural light to all rooms is generally desirable, its absence in this instance would not result in unacceptable living conditions, particularly given the satisfactory size and lighting of the main living space. It is, however, a minor qualitative deficiency.

The proposed terrace would sit directly above the rear bedroom of Flat 1, a noise-sensitive room, and would serve Flat 2, a three-bedroom flat capable of accommodating up to five persons. However, the terrace would be modest in scale and its physical capacity would inherently constrain its likely intensity of use. Terraces can give rise to intermittent activity noise associated with footfall, movement and domestic social use, particularly during warmer months when windows may be open. Nevertheless, in the context of this established residential terrace, where rear-facing windows and external amenity spaces already give rise to a degree of activity, there is no specific evidence before me that the use of this terrace would generate noise materially greater than that typically associated with the ordinary occupation of a flat above. I am therefore not persuaded the proposal would give rise to unacceptable noise or disturbance for the occupiers of Flat 1 or, with the privacy screening in place, those adjoining at No. 6.

In respect of overlooking, the Council is concerned the 1.2m high rear screen would not adequately prevent views into the garden of Flat 1 and the adjoining garden at No.6. I observed at my site visit there is an established degree of mutual intervisibility between rear gardens within the terrace, including from upper-floor windows and from elevated rear terraces. The appeal property itself currently benefits from a first-floor terrace overlooking adjoining gardens, including towards No.6.

That said, it is reasonable to expect the immediately adjoining section of Flat 1’s private garden should retain protection from direct downward views from users standing at the rear edge of the terrace. Whilst the proposed 1.2m rear screen would limit views when seated, it would not prevent a person standing at the outer edge from looking down into the first part of the garden below. Simply increasing the height of the rear screen would likely diminish the openness and usability of the terrace for Flat 2.

I have considered whether the potential for downward overlooking could be addressed by condition. I am satisfied in principle that a condition requiring a permanently retained solid privacy strip of approximately 0.8 metres in depth along the rear edge of the terrace, with screening of at least 1.2 metres in height, would prevent users standing at the edge and obtaining direct downward views. Although this would marginally reduce the usable terrace area, sufficient space would remain to provide an acceptable level of external amenity for Flat 2 in general accordance with relevant standards. Subject to such mitigation, the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking of Flat 1 or the occupiers of No. 6. However, given my decision I have not sought the views of the main parties on this potential solution.

Drawing these matters together, the limited shortcomings identified in respect of outlook and natural light would not, either individually or cumulatively, render the accommodation unacceptable, particularly given compliance with the NDSS and the satisfactory quality of the principal living areas. Subject to the privacy-strip condition, the proposal would also avoid unacceptable overlooking, noise or disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. Overall, the development would provide an acceptable standard of living accommodation and would not materially harm neighbours’ living conditions, and would accord with Policies Q2 and H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan and Policy D6 of the London Plan.

The appeal property forms part of a traditional terrace which would originally have featured paired, conjoined rear outrigger projections serving adjoining properties, with symmetrical pitched roofs extending over at least two storeys. The appeal property and No. [address] (No.4) formed one such pair. However, my site visit confirmed that the rear of the group has been substantially altered over time. Original pitched roofs have frequently been replaced or overlaid by flat-roofed additions of varying depths and heights, and roof terraces are present at Nos. 9 and [address] as well as at the appeal site. The rear projections of the appeal property and No. 4 have been materially modified, including flat-roofed upper additions at No. 4. As a result, the rear elevation now presents a varied and incrementally adapted composition in which the original symmetry and consistency of the paired rear projections has been substantially eroded.

The proposed first-floor extension would project marginally beyond the rear return at No. 4 but would align with the existing lower ground floor footprint and would not appear incongruous within this context of differing depths and forms. I do not find that it would unacceptably dominate the host building or harm the character of the group. The roof terrace and associated screening, although not a prevailing feature of the terrace, would read as lightweight additions and would sit comfortably alongside other rear alterations, presenting a balanced contemporary intervention that would not detract from visual amenity. Public views of the rear are extremely limited, thereby reducing the sensitivity of the proposed works.

Taken together, I am satisfied the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host building or the wider area and would accord with Policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan.

The appeal site lies within a [name] (CPZ) in an area with high public transport accessibility. Policies T1 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), together with Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021), seek to promote sustainable travel, minimise reliance on private car use and ensure development does not increase parking stress within controlled areas. In accessible locations such as this, the Council’s approach is to secure car-free status through a planning obligation preventing future occupiers from obtaining on-street parking permits and securing measures such as car club and cycle hire membership.

Policy Q13 of the Local Plan requires cycle parking to be safe, secure and convenient. Its supporting text states vertical storage requiring cycles to be lifted off the floor will not be accepted. The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) similarly emphasise usability and inclusivity and discourage arrangements that would deter regular use.

The proposal would provide internal cycle storage for each of the three flats. While the number of spaces meets the Council’s requirements, the arrangements would be constrained. In particular, access for Flats 2 and 3 would involve manoeuvring cycles through internal circulation areas and down a short flight of steps. One space would be provided by way of a wall-mounted rack requiring the cycle to be lifted into position.

The appellant submits that the wall-mounted rack is comparable to a two-tier system supported by the LCDS. However, two-tier systems are generally purpose-designed installations, often incorporating mechanical assistance, within dedicated cycle stores. A single wall-mounted rack requiring manual lifting would not provide the level of accessibility and ease of use anticipated by Policy Q13 and the LCDS.

[name] of Policy Q13 recognises conversions of existing dwellings may be subject to physical constraints and require cycle storage solutions to respond to the characteristics of the building. In this instance, there is no rear access and no realistic opportunity to provide external storage to the front without harm to visual amenity or access. Nevertheless, the policy continues to expect cycle parking to be safe and convenient. The arrangements would reduce ease of use compared with purpose-designed cycle stores, due to the need to negotiate internal circulation areas and steps, and reliance on a single lift-dependent space. I therefore find the proposal would not fully satisfy the accessibility objectives of Policy Q13. However, having regard to the constrained nature of the building and the provision of a secure, dedicated space for each flat close to its entrance, the degree of conflict would be limited and would not, in itself, justify dismissal of the appeal.

The proposal would nevertheless introduce three additional dwellings within a CPZ. In the absence of a planning obligation preventing future occupiers from obtaining parking permits and securing sustainable travel measures, I cannot be satisfied the development would not increase demand for on-street parking. A planning obligation securing permit-free status, together with car club and cycle hire membership, would materially assist in promoting sustainable travel choices and reducing reliance on private car ownership in this highly accessible location.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to enter into a unilateral undertaking. However, no completed or draft obligation has been submitted. The procedural guidance for planning appeals makes clear where a planning obligation is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms, it should be provided at the earliest possible stage, normally with the appeal submission.

I conclude, in the absence of a completed planning obligation securing permit-free status and associated sustainable travel measures, that I cannot be satisfied the development would avoid increasing on-street parking demand within this [name]. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies T1 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).

I have had regard to local planning permissions for flat conversions cited by the appellant, in which cycle parking requires cycles to be taken through the building, including doorways, corners and steps. These examples show compromises can arise in conversion schemes, but they do not set a precedent and carry very limited weight, as this appeal turns on its own merits and the specific circumstances of this development.

For the reasons given above, I have found the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers, would not result in unacceptable harm to living conditions (subject to the imposition of a privacy-strip condition), and would preserve the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Whilst the internal cycle parking provision would be constrained, this limited conflict with Policy Q13 would not, on its own, justify dismissal of the appeal.

However, in the absence of a completed planning obligation securing the necessary car-free measures within this [name] location, I cannot be satisfied the development would avoid harmful transport impacts or accord with the sustainable travel objectives of the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.