Appeal 6001436

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

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.

Whilst the Council did not issue a decision on the scheme, their evidence suggests that had they done so it would have been refused. The reasons therefore have informed the main issues. These are whether or not the proposed development would a) represent the unacceptable loss of office accommodation; and b) provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal living standards, private amenity space, outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is a detached single storey building, formally a public convenience, that has the benefit of planning permission for change of use to an office under use class B1. Changes to the use classes order has replaced this with class E, but the use of the premises is directly related to those which the following policies seek to protect. The appeal site is within an area characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses. It is situated within a [name], although it does not occupy a primary or secondary frontage.

Policy 10 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) (BLP) permits the conversion of (genuinely redundant) non-residential buildings to residential use, subject to compliance with [name] 83, 97 and 99. The building is currently in active use as an office and therefore cannot be considered redundant. The proposal consequently fails to meet the fundamental requirement of Policy 10.

Policy 83 of the BLP allows the change of use of non-designated Class B sites to a non-employment-generating use, while Policy 86 permits the change of use of Class B1(a) sites outside Town Centres and [name] only where a lack of demand for the existing use is demonstrated. Both policies require at least six months of recent, active marketing and evidence that all reasonable employment related reuse options have been fully explored. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that a marketing exercise has been carried out and that all reasonable employment reuse options have been explored as required by Policy 83 and 86 of the BLP. The Council suggests that community uses should also be explored within any marketing assessment of the site. However, neither Policy 83 nor 86 includes such a requirement.

Whilst paragraph 128 (a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) encourages local planning authorities to support the use of employment land for housing in areas of high housing demand, this should not be at the expense of key economic sectors, employment sites, or the vitality and viability of town centres. In this instance, no marketing exercise has been undertaken, and it has therefore not been demonstrated that the existing office use is no longer viable or that its loss would not result in harm to local employment provision.

Permitted development allowances for a change of use of the premises to a dwelling have been removed by condition and as such do not form a legislative fallback for the appeal scheme. In addition, the supporting text to Policy 83 of the BLP highlights the importance of retaining a range of business accommodation, including small units, as these can meet particular needs that may not be accommodated within designated employment or industrial areas.

The Council refers to Policies 96 and 99 of the BLP as being relevant. However, these relate specifically to the change of use of shops, whereas the appeal proposal relates to an existing office use. As such, these policies are not directly applicable to my assessment. With these and the above matters in mind, it is sufficiently clear that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of the office accommodation would be justified. The scheme would therefore represent the unacceptable loss of an office use. This would be contrary to Policies 10, 83 and 86 of the BLP. The aims of which I have set out.

Policy 4 (b) of the BLP, seeks minimum space standards for dwellings as set out in the London Plan (2021) (LP) and the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (as updated). Policy D6 of the LP adopts the [name] (NDSS).

The proposed dwelling would comprise a kitchen/dining space, bathroom and a separate bedroom. Although the submitted floor plan illustrates both a double bed and sofa within the bedroom, the kitchen/dining area is of a sufficient size in that it could also function as a kitchen/living space. Having regard to this arrangement, the proposed dwelling could reasonably be considered as a one bedroom two person unit, particularly as the bedroom provides 15.7square metres (sqm) of floor space, which exceeds the criteria for a double or twin room specified in Policy D6 (4) of the LP. The proposed dwelling would have a total floor area of 38.95 sqm, which falls significantly below the NDSS minimum of 50 sqm for a one bedroom, two person dwelling. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the minimum internal space requirements.

The kitchen/dining space would be served by two windows, one to the front and one to the rear. Although the rear window would face a high close boarded fence, the front window would provide an adequate level of light and outlook for this built up location. The bedroom would also be served by two windows, positioned on the rear and side elevations. However, due to their orientation and close proximity of the boundary fence, the bedroom would benefit from limited natural light and would experience a poor outlook. As a result, future occupants would be heavily reliant on artificial lighting to use the bedroom comfortably, leading to an unsatisfactory standard of living accommodation. The proposal therefore fails to provide sufficient access to natural light and would result in a poor living environment, contrary to Policy 10 of the BLP which seeks to ensure good quality living accommodation.

Policy 4 (c) of the BLP seeks provision of sufficient external amenity space that is accessible and private. Policy D6 (9) of the LP requires a minimum of 5 sqm of private outdoor amenity space for a one to two person dwelling, with a minimum depth and width of 1.5m. Although a strip of land to the rear of the proposed dwelling provides approximately 8sqm of outdoor space, its depth is only approximately 1m and therefore does not meet the minimum dimensional standards. Whilst it is noted that there are parks located nearby, the supporting text to Policy D6 of the LP, makes clear that all dwellings should be provided with private outside space that is practical in both shape and useability. The proposed amenity space would not meet this requirement. It would be unavoidably narrow, and its practical usability unacceptably compromised.

In summary, the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. It would accordingly conflict with Policies 4 and 10 of the BLP and Policy D6 of the LP and the Framework which seek a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, the most important policies are out of date and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The appeal scheme would give rise to the above mentioned harms in respect of the unacceptable loss of office accommodation and the living conditions of future occupiers in a number of respects. These would be significant and enduring. They would be worthy of substantial weight since the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of creating better places in which to live. Planning decisions should ensure that developments create places that promote well-being with a high standard of amenity for users. Development that is not well designed should be refused.

The Council’s housing undersupply of housing is significant. The scheme would make a positive yet very limited difference to it, being mindful of the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. The site is in an accessible location for services and facilities within walking distance, and bus stops nearby reducing the reliance on the private vehicle. It would provide some social and economic benefits with occupiers supporting other industry in the local area and assisting in the vitality of the [name]. All of these effects and benefits would be modest given the scale of the development. Furthermore, these benefits associated with its location would be offset against the loss of the economic and social activity associated with the existing use. The proposals do not form affordable housing. For these and the above reasons, I would attach moderate weight to the scheme’s benefits.

It is therefore sufficiently clear that, in this particular case and with regard to the above circumstances, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission for the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would not therefore apply to the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations (including the approach of the Framework) do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that it is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is thus refused.