Appeal 6002658

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address given above is taken from the application form. I note that it is referred to as [site address] , [site address] in the decision notice and appeal form.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development includes the creation of two external balconies. The Council dealt with the proposal on that basis, and so shall I.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would: • result in the loss of a smaller family dwelling; and • provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed Flat 3 with regards to external amenity space.

The appeal scheme involves the conversion of an existing flat (the upper flat), set out over the ground, first, and loft floors of the appeal site building (the building), into a one-bed flat on the ground floor (Flat 2) and a two-bed flat over the remainder (Flat 3). An existing basement flat would not be affected.

Policy DM3 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 2 (2022) (the City Plan) addresses residential conversions and the retention of smaller dwellings. Pertinent to the appeal, it supports the conversion of dwellings into smaller units where, as at criterion (a), the original floor area is greater than 120m2 as originally built and, as at (b), at least one unit of the accommodation provided is suitable for family occupation and has a minimum of two bedrooms.

Turning first to criterion (a); The original floor area is defined by a policy footnote as excluding later additions since the dwelling was built or as built on 1st July 1948, including loft conversions. There is no dispute between the parties that the upper flat has a floor area of 112m2 when the loft floor is excluded, or that it should be excluded. The question is whether the basement flat should be included in floorspace calculations.

I have no reason to doubt that when the building was built, the basement was part of its floor area. I am also mindful that in other areas of planning, such as the General Permitted Development Order, the term ‘original’ means a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 where it was built before that date, and as it was built if built after that date. The similarity of this language to that in the policy footnote is striking. Even so, I see little reason to support the appellant’s approach that it is the original floor area of the building, rather than of the upper flat, upon which the appeal scheme calculations should be based.

For one thing, the policy addresses “the conversion of dwellings into smaller units” rather than the further conversion of already converted buildings. The upper flat and basement flats are self-contained dwellings, and it is only the former that is proposed for conversion.

What is more, I see little to explain why, if the basement flat were included in calculations despite not being part of the proposal, the same approach could not be taken later to further subdivisions. To my mind, if the appellant’s approach were the correct one then a later proposal to convert each of the three appeal scheme flats into smaller units, or indeed one submitted after that to convert those units into even smaller ones, would always satisfy the requirements of criterion (a), as each would rely upon the original floor area of the building. In other words, the criterion would serve no evident purpose.

I find that it is the floor area of the upper flat which is relevant. As that is less than 120m2 the appeal scheme does not satisfy the requirements of criterion (a) of City Plan Policy DM3. The purposes of the policy include preventing the conversion/sub-division of smaller family dwellings, defined as those with a floor area less than 120m2. The appeal scheme would not adhere to the policy in that respect and does not have its support.

Criterion (b) of Policy DM3 requires that at least one unit of the accommodation to be provided is suitable for family occupation, with a minimum of two bedrooms. The appellant intends for Flat 3 to serve this purpose. The Council accepts that it does in all respects save one; the provision of external amenity space. Flat 3 would have the benefit of the two proposed external balcony areas, but no other private outdoor space.

[name] have not been made aware of any minimum sizes for outdoor amenity spaces, Flat 3 is intended to house a family. As such, it seems reasonable to me that the proposed outdoor space should be appropriate for family life; I would expect it to be capable of supporting outdoor family social interaction, of providing a space where children may play, and of meeting functional needs such as providing a space for clothes to dry.

The smaller balcony would be accessed through one of the bedrooms, inherently limiting its availability to other occupiers of the proposed flat. Moreover, it would be so small that I have difficulty envisaging it supporting outdoor family interaction, much less children’s play.

The larger balcony would provide scope for outdoor seating and perhaps a table, though at some 11m2 I do not see that any form of outdoor activity beyond sitting together would be realistic, particularly for a family of four, as envisaged by the policy, and certainly not if occupiers of the flat were to try and put it to more than one use at a time. Overall, I do not see that the balconies, even taken together, would provide adequate outdoor space for the needs of a family.

I acknowledge that there are public open spaces nearby, but do not see that as justification or effective mitigation. The way one uses public open spaces is inherently different to the way one uses a private amenity space in terms of frequency, privacy, security, and functionality. Inadequate provision in the appeal scheme for outdoor domestic activities would not, therefore, be offset by public space provision.

I have been provided with reference numbers for three applications in which, the appellant contends, a similar approach led to approval. However, I have been provided with all but no details of these schemes, and so cannot reasonably apply enough weight to them as to alter my findings above.

The proposed development would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed Flat 3 with regards to external amenity space. In that respect the appeal scheme does not satisfy the requirements of criterion (b) of City Plan Policy DM3.

The provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are engaged. The Council has only 1.4 years supply of housing land, and has not contested the appellant’s description of this as an acute shortage, worsening over recent years.

The appeal scheme would result in an additional dwelling that could be provided quickly, helping towards undersupply, and supporting the wider Governmental aim of significantly boosting housing stock. The site is in a sustainable location, and the appeal scheme would make effective use of land. The scheme accords strongly to the aims of the Framework in these regards. These benefits attract positive weight in my determination, increased in this instance by the local housing land supply position.

However, the Framework also requires development to create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In providing inadequate amenity space for a family, the appeal scheme would fall significantly short of this requirement, to the lasting detriment of any family who may come to occupy Flat 3.

Furthermore, the Framework is clear that in delivering a sufficient supply of new homes, the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need. I have been provided with very little reason to doubt that there remains a high level of demand for smaller dwellings suitable for family accommodation, as set out in Policy DM3, or that the upper flat currently provides such accommodation. The loss of such a residential unit would be fundamentally at odds with the stated purpose of the policy, which itself reflects the requirements of the Framework.

Overall, I find that the adverse impacts of allowing the appeal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

I recognise that the appeal scheme has been found acceptable in respect of other matters such as amenity, standard of accommodation, character and appearance, and highway safety. These are standard expectations of development, and do not weigh in favour of the scheme.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.