Appeal 6001362

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for amalgamation of the 3no. existing flats (Class C3) into a single dwellinghouse (Class C3) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02208/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 2506-00-010, 2506-00-011, 2506-01-100, 2506-01-101, 2506-01-200, 2506-01-201.

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.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on housing supply in the borough.

Policy H3 (a) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) (LLP) seeks to safeguard existing self-contained C3 housing, in line with the requirements of the London Plan. Policy H8 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) stipulates that any loss of existing housing should be offset by new provision at equivalent or higher densities, delivering at least the same overall floorspace. Collectively, these policies are intended to protect the existing housing stock to ensure that housing needs can continue to be met. They do not, however, address the issue of amalgamations.

Policy H1 of the LP seeks to increase the supply of housing and establishes the ten year housing targets that each local planning authority is required to plan for. Table Appeal Planning Officer 6001362 4.1 identifies a target of 13,350 additional homes for Lambeth. While the policy outlines mechanisms for achieving these targets, it does not include any requirement to resist the amalgamation of existing flats or houses into larger dwellings. The supporting text to Policy H1 explains that progress towards meeting the housing targets will be monitored through both housing completions and the net pipeline of approved homes. It confirms that the ten year targets should be assessed in net terms, taking account of homes lost through demolition, amalgamations or change of use. Overall, the emphasis of the policy is on increasing housing supply rather than preventing the loss of units.

Policy H2 of the LP seeks to increase the contribution of small sites to meeting London’s housing need. This is one of the mechanisms identified in Policy H1 for achieving housing targets. Table 4.2 identifies a target of 4,000 homes on small sites (below 0.25 hectares) for Lambeth. The supporting text to the policy explains that where amalgamations of separate flats into larger homes results in the sustained loss of housing units and does not address identified needs for larger family accommodation, boroughs are encouraged to resist such proposals.

The proposal would result in a net reduction of two existing two bedroom flats, and the gain of a three bedroom dwelling and a one bedroom annexe, reverting to the buildings original use to a single dwelling. Although the formation of a single dwelling would result in a reduction in the number of overall bedrooms, the accommodation would be capable of housing an equivalent number of occupants as that of the existing flats. The level of residential floorspace would be unaffected. The proposal would not therefore result in any discernible reduction in residential density. This approach reflects that of case law - London Borough of Lambeth Council v Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities (2024) EWHC 1391 (Admin) which finds that Policy H8 of the LP does not provide any guidance or definition on what is meant by density.

Policy H10 (9) of the LP acknowledges the need for additional family housing and the contribution that one and two bed units make in releasing existing family accommodation to meet London’s housing requirements. The Council has indicated that one and two bedroom flats are in high demand and perform an important role in meeting local housing need. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to corroborate this. Paragraph 4.2.8 of the LP, in support of Policy H2, states that where existing homes are redeveloped or subdivided, boroughs may seek the provision of family sized accommodation (3 bed + units). The proposal accords with this approach in reinstating a family home.

The most recent [name] (HDT), published in December 2024, confirms that the Council delivered 74% of its housing target over the period between 2020-2023. As a result, the Council is required to prepare an Action Plan setting out the reasons for under-delivery, identifying measures to mitigate the risk of further under-delivery and outlining the steps it intends to take to improve future housing delivery. In these circumstances where delivery falls below 75%, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council asserts that the presumption requires the planning balance to weigh strongly against the loss of any housing units.

The Council has expressed concern about the cumulative impact of amalgamations on the borough’s housing targets, noting that over a period of 15 years an average Appeal Planning Officer 6001362 of 13 homes per year were lost through amalgamation. They further contend that a sustained period of above average levels of amalgamation could place Lambeth at risk of failing the HDT. Although a small proportion of the housing stock is lost each year through amalgamations, equating to around 1% of the annual housing target and around 3.5% of its annual requirement on small sites, this level of loss is not considered significant in the context of the overall housing requirement.

Amalgamations form only part of the housing delivery and the HDT shortfall is likely to arise from a wider range of factors. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that amalgamations are occurring with sufficient frequency to constitute a trend, nor that such occurrences are materially affecting overall housing delivery. I have also not been directed to any policy which seeks to resist amalgamations. This conclusion is consistent with that of the appeal decision APP/N5660/W/23/3334270. Consequently, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the supply of housing in Lambeth. It would therefore not conflict with the requirements of Policy H8 of the LP and Policy H3 of the LLP, as summarised above. It would accord with the Framework objectives of significantly boosting the supply of homes or securing a mix of housing to meet identified need.

The imposing of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) falls outside the remit of this appeal, furthermore a condition requiring a TPO would not meet the required legal tests, nor is it required to make the development acceptable.

Conditions relating to the commencement of development and requiring works to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for enforcement and certainty. If the annexe accommodation is not used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required. A restrictive occupancy condition is therefore not necessary. There would be room within the garage to store bicycles and sufficient space to the front of the property for bins. A similar arrangement to that which occurs for the other dwellings within the road.

The proposal would accord with the development plan. I therefore recommend the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the aforementioned conditions.