Appeal 6001327

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considered the proposal on the basis that the proposed dwelling units were to have two bedspaces each. The appellant clarified in their appeal statement that this was an error and has amended the plans to show a single bed in each unit for clarification. This being the case, I have considered the appeal on the basis that the dwelling units would have one bedspace each.

The main issues are whether the: • loss of employment space is acceptable having regard to the development plan • proposed development would provide future occupiers with living conditions of an acceptable quality having regard to internal and external areas.

The appeal site lies on a main road network and is accessed from the commercial frontage via a narrow alley. High walls bound the site to the sides and rear. Within the site is a two-storey structure with a pitched roof and external doors on both levels. Both levels have windows on three of the four elevations. The upper storey is accessed using external metal staircases, of which there are two.

Before a change to a non-employment use is accepted, Policy EA(A) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy and [name] 2014 (RGLP) requires, amongst other things, the submission of two years marketing evidence to confirm that there is no realistic prospect of any form of employment use at the site. The appellant provided a letter from ‘[name] which was considered by the LPA as part of the planning application and indicates that the property has been marketed “for some time”. However, it does not detail the price it was marketed at, for how long or whether it was the whole or a part of the site. The evidence from the appellant does not provide further information, but states that any additional marketing of the property and leaving it vacant for longer in its dilapidated condition would exacerbate its decline.

Although the condition of the property may be an issue, and that it is functionally and physically separated from the main commercial frontage, there is no compelling evidence to suggest repair or enhancements to the site could not be carried out to attract employment generating uses. Moreover, the appellant has failed to demonstrate through sufficient marketing that the site cannot be used for employment purposes.

As such, the proposed development conflicts with RGLP Policy EA(a) and Polices E4 and E7 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). These policies seek, amongst other things, an intensification of business uses, to maximise the contribution to employment from sites in existing or previous employment use and to meet demands for industrial and related functions with a sufficient supply of land in different parts of London.

The proposed development would create two dwelling units, with one on the ground floor level and the other on the upper floor. The layout and window configuration of both units would be similar.

There are a number of windows on the side elevation facing [address]. On the ground floor these have very limited outlook due to the proximity of the wall at the boundary. From the upper floor, a timber and corrugated plastic structure on the other side of the boundary wall would also limit outlook. In addition, due to the proximity of the neighbouring structure and the boundary wall, occupiers would experience reduced internal daylight and/or sunlight, particularly at ground floor level. Moreover, the appellant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the internal spaces of the proposed development would receive adequate sunlight or daylight.

As the Council considered the proposed development on the basis that the units were to have two bedspaces, this would mean that in its consideration of the proposal, it found the internal area fell short of the requirements set out in Table 3.1 to Policy D6 of the LP. The appellant states the units would be occupied by single individuals and the appeal statement indicates that at [address] metres each, the internal area in both units exceeds the [address] metres required by Table 3.1 of the LP Policy D6. In this respect, the proposal would provide adequate floor space for each one-bedspace unit and the proposal would not be in conflict with LP Policy D6.

However, in relation to the key qualitative aspects that should be addressed set out in Table 3.2 to LP Policy D6 and amongst other things, those set out in [name] DH1 and H5, the proposal fails to include provision for useable private outside space. I accept that public open space is close by, as are local services and facilities and that a seating area or space for drying clothes could be accommodated within the site. However, insufficient details relating to relating the outside space have been provided and it is not evident what impact the proposed bin and cycle store would have on the potential for useable private outside space. Overall, based upon the information before me, the external areas serving the proposed development fail to provide adequate facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of future occupiers.

RGLP Policy H2 requires a mix of housing types and sizes in all developments that should include a proportion of 3, 4 and 4+ bedroom units. Only two units would be provided, so the opportunity for a mix of types and sizes would be limited. Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to RGLP Policy H2 which specifically requires that development proposals provide a mix of types and sizes and a proportion of units with 3 bedrooms or more.

With the exception of a modest two storey side addition, the proposal appears largely to reuse the existing structure and there are benefits of reusing an existing building. However, in this case, this would compromise the delivery of high-quality design and adequate living conditions for future occupiers for the reasons set out above.

I acknowledge that LP Policy H2 supports new homes on small sites, where they are well-designed. In this instance, as I have found that the development fails to provide a high-quality development for future occupiers for the reasons already rehearsed, the proposal would fail to meet the expectations of LP Policy H2 and indeed, LP Policy D6 and [name] H5 and DH1, which have similar aims to ensure the provision of quality developments.

Consequently, the proposed development would result in the creation of dwelling units that would not deliver adequate living conditions for future occupiers, particularly in terms of outlook, sunlight and daylight for internal spaces. These factors would result in significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers – particularly any occupier of the ground floor unit. It is therefore contrary to [name] H5 and DH1 and [name] D6, H2 and H10 which seek, amongst other things housing developments including a mix of sizes and types to achieve a high-quality design in part to provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, including adequately sized rooms, sufficient daylight and sunlight, private outside space and adequate outside storage space for waste and recycling.

The appellant references LP Policy GG2 in their evidence, which requires developments to make best use of land. Whilst the proposal may be seeking to make best use of land, this does not outweigh the requirement to comply with other policies of the development plan as set out above.

The Council has referred to RGLP Policy H(b) which relates to the conversion or subdivision of residential properties. As such, it is not determinative for this appeal.

The LPA confirms that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged. Notwithstanding the benefits that the proposed development may deliver, including its location close to services and amenities, the harm as a result of the loss of employment floorspace and the failure to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers as identified above, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply and the other material considerations presented do not justify allowing the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.