Appeal 6002216

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of upper floors to three flats at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/0424, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no: A24-51-01e (existing and proposed plans).

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Prior to the first residential occupancy of the development hereby permitted, refuse and recycling storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan. Such provision shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

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 appellant has submitted a revised internal layout for Flat 1 as part of the appeal. The proposed development remains substantively the same as in the description of development, and the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised layout. Consequently, I do not believe that any party would be prejudiced by my accepting the plan. I have therefore considered the proposed scheme on this basis. Appeal Planning Officer 6002216

The main issue is whether the proposed development would result in suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is the middle property in a short terrace of three properties. it shares a prominent gable with one of the end properties, and at a ground floor level is separated from the other end with an alleyway. The upper floors of the appeal property are currently vacant, and the ground floor is occupied by a restaurant, which is to be retained. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential, commercial and educational uses.

The upper floors are accessed at the rear of the building via the narrow alleyway through the terrace. The host building has a deep, rear two storey extension and a large dormer to the original pitched roof. The adjacent neighbour No 222 has a single storey rear extension; where the flank walls of the original structures face each other, they are positioned very close together.

The proposed development would divide the upper floors into three flats, consisting of two on the first floor and a further flat on the top floor. The Council has confirmed that it has no concerns regarding the proposed use of the building, nor with the proposed internal layout of Flats 2 or 3. The main issue is therefore centred on the outlook of the proposed Flat 1.

The proposed location of Flat 1 is the first floor of the appeal building, partially situated within the extant rear extension. The amended internal layout indicates that the bedroom and living room would be positioned towards the rear of the building; the windows in this part of the building overlook the flat roof of the neighbouring building and have clear views of the sky.

Furthermore, there is a generous intervening space between the rear of the appeal building and the next building to the rear, which creates a further spacious outlook appreciable from the windows in the flat. There would therefore be no sense of overbearing or visual dominance caused by any surrounding structures and the windows provide a sufficient outlook.

The Council has raised concerns that the amended proposed layout for Flat 1 may not provide sufficient daylight as the amended drawing only shows one window to the proposed bedroom. However, drawing A24-51-01e shows a studio layout, and would thus provide a total of four windows to the main habitable space. Based on the evidence before me, including my observations on site, this configuration would provide an acceptable level of daylight for future occupiers of the dwelling.

Overall, the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers with regard to outlook. It therefore complies with Policy 70 of the City and District of [site address] Local Plan Review (1994) which aims to ensure, amongst other things, that housing development is well designed and appropriately laid out to provide a high standard of living environment for future occupiers.

The Council in the statement has referred to the removal of the kitchen window serving Flat 2 as part of the amended drawing. However, the new window proposed Appeal Planning Officer 6002216 appears to be present on both the amended and original proposed drawings, and so I am satisfied that adequate outlook would be provided for that flat.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is also necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to matching materials for the proposed external works is also necessary.

A condition relating to the provision of refuse and recycling storage has been suggested by the Council’s Waste Management team and the appellant. In the interest of maintaining a safe and tidy environment, I agree that a condition regarding the provision of bin storage is necessary.

The Council suggests a condition to require a development progress report to be submitted at a specified time. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal is ‘relevant residential development’ for the purposes of the relevant legislation, and therefore I do not recommend this condition be imposed.

The Council has also recommended a condition requiring a construction method statement to be submitted and approved prior to work commencing. The level of detail required by this condition would be unduly onerous and would not proportionately reflect the proposed development. I have therefore not recommended that this condition be included.

Similarly, the Council has requested a condition relating to the submission of [name] plan. However, the delegated report confirms that the proposed development falls within one or more of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements apply. In an absence of any further evidence to the contrary, the condition is not necessary.

A condition relating to the provision of cycle storage has been proposed by the appellant. However, it has not been demonstrated to be necessary given the location of the proposal close to local shops and services, including public transport. Therefore, I do not recommend such a condition, however this does not preclude the appellant from making such provision should they choose to.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.