Appeal 6001175

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.

I have removed the term retrospective from the description as this is not a form of development. Furthermore, I noted during my site visit that one of the rooms annotated as a bedroom is currently in use as an office. Therefore, the plans only partly reflect what is currently on site. Nevertheless, I am determining the appeal on the basis of what is shown on the plans provided and the details contained within the application form.

The main issue of the appeal is whether suitable living conditions would be provided for occupiers of the proposed development with particular regard to internal living space.

The appellant contends that there has been a misinterpretation and disproportionate application of internal-space standards. However, [name] (NDSS) are set out within Table 3.1 under Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), and the note accompanying this table states that a ‘New dwelling’ in this context includes new build, conversions and changes of use. Given that the proposal results in a change of use to a new form of residential development, I consider the standards to apply to the proposal.

There is no dispute that there is a shortfall from the minimum standards set out as annotations and dimensions on the submitted floor plans clearly demonstrate this. Whilst the shortfall may be considered marginal, the NDSS establishes a minimum and therefore the proposal would fail to provide an acceptable amount of internal space.

The Council’s acknowledged failure of the [name] means that the most important policies for determining the appeal are out-of-date. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged, and planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The Council contends that the proposal’s failure to provide accommodation of an acceptable standard is sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainable development. While the quality of accommodation is an important material consideration, it does not fall within the closed list of circumstances in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 11(d)(i) or (ii) that would disengage the presumption.

The provision of additional housing carries substantial weight, particularly in an area with persistent under-delivery. However, the NPPF is clear that new homes should provide a high standard of amenity for current and future occupiers. In this case, the identified shortcoming of the proposal relating to insufficient internal living space, would result in accommodation falling below an acceptable standard.

The harm that would arise from the lack of suitable internal living space attracts significant weight and, in my judgement, this matter significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of additional housing, even in the context of the tilted balance.

On this basis, the proposal fails to provide suitable living conditions in relation to internal space. Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy LP26 of the LP which, amongst other matters, require development to provide a high standard of accommodation and to comply with the NDSS. I have also had regard to the [name] (2019).

The proposal’s effect on character and appearance, noise, parking, fire safety, refuse storage, parking and neighbouring residential amenity, have been found as acceptable. Nonetheless, these are neutral factors in the planning balance and do not overcome the harm that would arise from the unacceptable provision of internal living space.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, 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.