Appeal 6002579

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing.

The appeal property comprises a two-storey, mid-terrace dwelling. The area to the north and east of the site is predominantly residential in character comprising mainly two-storey terrace houses. The area to the west of the site is mixed use in character and includes blocks of flats from four storeys in height to high rise buildings.

The submitted Planning Statement refers to the existing dwelling as a “three-bedroom terrace house” and the submitted existing first floor plan shows the property as having three bedrooms. Notwithstanding this, the appellant contends that the third bedroom is unsuitable for use as a bedroom as it does not meet the minimum size requirements set out in the national technical housing standards and Policy D6 of the London Plan (LP). Therefore, the appellant considers the property to be a two bedroom dwelling.

The property would have been built at a time when the minimum size standards referred to by the appellant did not apply. The existing plans show the property has three bedrooms and, despite its size, the smaller room could still be used as a bedroom. Therefore, I have assessed the appeal on the basis that the existing dwelling is a three bedroom property.

The appellant references exceptions within Policy H4 of the Newham Local Plan (NLP) which lists four criteria where the conversion of three plus bed housing may be appropriate if all criteria are satisfied. Criterion 1 is not met as the site is not within a designated town or local centre, or on a [name] or [name] within 400m of such centres. The appeal property is not above an existing commercial unit, it has a clearly defined entrance, and it has access to external private amenity, thereby failing to meet the remaining three criteria. Accordingly, the proposal does not meet the criteria in part 2.a. of Policy H4.

As set out in the NLP, the greatest housing need in the Borough is for three bedroom homes. The proposal would result in the loss of a three bedroom home which Policy H4 of the NLP specifically seeks to protect.

The appellant has referred to a recent decision in which the Council granted permission for a House in [name] (HMO) at the next door property at [address] (ref. 25/02932/FUL). I note from the Council’s Officer Report that the property at No 5 is described as a two bedroom dwelling and as such does not constitute a family sized dwelling. Accordingly, Policy H4 of the NLP would not apply and is therefore not directly comparable with the appeal scheme.

Reference is made by the appellant to an appeal decision at [address], Stratford (ref. APP/G5750/W/20/326577). That appeal proposal was for the conversion of an existing 6-bedroom Class C4 HMO into a sui generis HMO, together with operational development. Consequently, as the property was already in use as an HMO, the decision referred to is not comparable to the appeal before me.

The appellant contends that the Council’s HMO guidance recognises that smaller terraced houses often function better as HMOs. I am unable to find such a reference in the document provided by the Council. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development would still result in the loss of a three bedroom dwelling in conflict with Policy H4 of the NLP.

For the above reasons, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the supply of family housing in conflict with Policies H8 and H10 of the LP and Policies H1 and H4 of the NLP which collectively seek, amongst other things, to prevent the loss of existing family sized homes. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, in seeking to boost housing supply, states at paragraph 61, that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of specific, deliverable housing sites. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. However, the harm I have identified to the loss of family housing significantly and demonstrably outweighs the modest increase in bedroom provision through the proposed HMO in the Borough.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.