Appeal 6002037

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to [name] (Use Class C2) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00735/FUL and the information submitted with it, subject to the following

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 drawing nos: A-0001 and A-0002.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the supply of housing; • the local highway network, with particular regard to local parking conditions and highway safety; and • whether there are any other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal site comprises a large detached house with 9 bedrooms across two storeys and as such is considered to be a dwelling capable of being occupied by a family. Policy H1 of the London Plan (March 2021)(LP) and CS10 of the Royal Borough of [name] (April 2021) (KCS) seek to increase the delivery of housing. The Council are currently not meeting the identified targets and cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with the most recent position being 1.47 years, substantially below what is required.

Policy DM14 of the KCS resists the loss of existing accommodation of all types and in particular family accommodation, due to an identified need for family housing within the Borough, which is unlikely to be met by new build schemes. The proposal would result in the loss of an open market family home in lieu of a family care home for three separate families (mothers and children).

As such, the proposal would fail to accord with LP Policy H1 and [name] CS10 and DM14 as set out above.

The appeal site is located on a busy, urban road, within a waiting restriction zone with no on street parking at any time. The majority of properties in the vicinity, including the appeal property benefit from off-street parking, However, the appeal site does not have a dedicated dropped kerb and access is gained using the adjacent dropped kerb/by mounting the pavement. There is a bus stop in front of the adjacent property to the north with the bus stop road markings extending across the access to several properties, including the appeal site.

The addition of a dropped kerb at the site would formalise the existing parking arrangement, providing two spaces. The family care home would have staff and unrelated residents, potentially leading to an increase in vehicles associated with the property than when compared to a dwellinghouse. Nevertheless, there is a good level of accessibility via public transport and additional lawful parking would be possible within the local area, on street and within car parks. I have no evidence before me to indicate parking stress. As such, I am satisfied that adequate levels of parking would be provided, such that there would be no discernible change to parking conditions locally.

Despite the proposed dropped kerb being closer to the bus stop than that at No. 155, road users would be fully aware of the vehicle crossing and there would be ample intervisibility between the various users, including motorists, pedestrians and bus drivers. Sufficient space would be provided for users of the bus stop to safely wait, board and alight from buses, allowing for highway safety to be maintained.

The Council suggests that a dropped kerb application would not be successful. However, I have no substantiated evidence before me which would support this statement, and I am satisfied that the installation of a dropped kerb would not detrimentally affect highway safety. Moreover, the outcome of such an application is not a matter before me as part of this appeal.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the local highway network, with particular regard to local parking conditions and highway safety. It would accord with Policies T6 and T6.1 of the LP and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the KCS where they collectively require development to provide adequate levels of parking and have regard to local traffic conditions and highway safety.

The proposal would also accord with the Framework where it requires development to not unacceptably impact highway safety or have severe cumulative impacts on the road network.

The family care home would provide accommodation for three families. The Framework, provides support for housing needed for different groups in the community, including, looked after children. Policy H12 of the LP accords with the Framework and states that the delivery of support and specialised housing which meets an identified need should be supported and directs Boroughs to undertake assessments of their local need.

The Kingston Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) does not provide any assessment of the need for the proposed type of accommodation and instead advises that due weight is given and support is provided for applications for looked after children which reflects local need. The Council produced a [name] which seeks to ensure that a range of placements sufficient to meet the needs of all children in care are available locally.

The LHNA further acknowledges that the conversion of dwellinghouses is acceptable and that there is a need for homes of varying sizes. In the absence of any numerical assessment of need for the proposed type of development from either party, I am satisfied that the proposal would meet an identified need.

The appeal site lies within the setting of the [name] listed [site address] [name]. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, its’ significance is derived from its historic interest in relation to WWI and WWII and its attractive and imposing stone cross design. As the scheme would not alter the appearance of the appeal property nor materially alter its function, it would preserve the significance of the listed asset.

The proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling, at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole. [name] acknowledge the need for family homes within the area, the loss of an individual house would not substantially reduce the housing provision of this type nor the council’s housing land supply position. As such, I attribute this conflict moderate weight.

Nevertheless, the development plan provides support for specialist housing. The proposal would provide specialist accommodation for three separate families where there is an identified need for such. Therefore, I attribute this matter significant weight.

In the absence of any additional suggested conditions from the Council, I have imposed the statutory condition required to set the necessary time limit for development and a condition to indicate the approved plans in order to provide certainty.

When assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole, the adverse impact on the supply of family housing does not outweigh the benefits of a family care home. Consequently, other considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.