Appeal 6002740

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development in the banner heading to that used on the decision notice and that used by the appellant on their appeal application form. This is a more accurate description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

I have also amended the description of development and replaced the word ‘Lane’ as stipulated on the planning application form with the word ‘Road’, as this more accurately describes the location of the appeal site.

The Inspector notes that the Council recently adopted the Harrow Local Plan 2021- 2041 (the Local Plan) in March 2026. This supersedes, amongst other matters, the [name] (2021) and Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) which the Council relied upon in its assessment. The Council have provided a list of policies from the Local Plan it now relies upon. The main parties have had an opportunity to comment and, as such, I have proceeded on the basis of the updated plan and policies contained within it.

The appellant requests that I consider changes which were not before the Council when it took its decision. These changes relate to refusal reasons 1 and 2 (RR1 and RR2) and seek to demonstrate adequately sized bedrooms and main living areas, and an alternative position for the refuse and cycle store.

With regard to RR1, the [name] (new floor)1 shows that the overall size of the unit would be retained at approximately 86 sqm. It also shows that each double bedroom would now measure approximately 11.5 sqm, with a width of approximately 2.86 metres, and the single bedroom would now measure approximately 7.7 sqm, with a width of approximately 2.15 metres; and that the lounge/kitchen/diner would now measure approximately 29 sqm, and that storage would comprise two separate areas, measuring approximately 1.1 sqm and 1.5 sqm respectively. 1 JM-029-PL-1100-01 [name]

With regard to RR2, the updated [name] Plan2 and computer-generated image3 (CGI) show that the proposed bin and bike store would be set on top of a grille located over a void area, which, on the submitted plans, is stated to be a garden terrace. The CGI shows this area has planting and a seat. I saw that there was accommodation within the lower ground floor with direct access to the external amenity space. Whilst views into these rooms were predominantly screened from view by window coverings, occupants of these rooms could utilise the external amenity space. I saw that this space was well-maintained, with lighting, formal seating, planting and wall art. These features gave the area a domesticated feel, and based on the evidence before me and without anything to the contrary, I shall proceed on the basis that the external area is a garden terrace, which could be linked to a residential use.

I have considered the proposed changes, taking into consideration the tests on [name] Ltd4. Given that the changes to the layout of the proposed unit are internal, the scope and nature of the amendments are acceptable as pertains to [name] principles. I am therefore satisfied there would be no procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal, including those consulted on the original application. I have therefore determined the appeal based on plan5.

However, with regard to the revised location of the bin and bike store, these would amount to a substantial difference from the scheme considered by the Council and that upon which was consulted. The Council contend that it would require further consultation on the amended details with the owners and/or occupiers of the property to which the sunken terrace belongs and the owner/occupiers of [site address] . I am satisfied that it would be unfair not to reconsult on the changes and that my acceptance of the revisions would deprive those who were entitled to be consulted on the changes of that opportunity, given the nature and extent of the changes proposed. Accordingly, and with respect to refusal reason 2, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the submitted drawings.

The decision notice refers to the terms refuse storage and waste storage. For consistency, I have used the term refuse storage in my decision, treating them as meaning the same thing.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal living space; and, • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for the storage of refuse and cycles for occupants of [site address] .

Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) prescribes, amongst other matters, minimum gross internal floor areas (GIA); this is reflective of the [name] 2 JM-029-PL-0003-01 3 Proposed bin and bike storage 4 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 5 JM-029-PL-1100-01 [name] (NDSS), which states the minimum internal space for a three-bed five-person unit must be no less than 86 sqm. Standards set out in Policy D6 are intended to provide a good standard of living for intended future occupiers.

Whilst the Council is now satisfied with the size of the living area, it contends that there are anomalies with the amended floorplan and has drawn my attention to the amended figures. The appellant does not dispute the Council's position with regard to, amongst other matters, the increase in size of the bedrooms and lounge/kitchen/diner whilst also retaining the overall size of the unit.

From a comparison of the plans, it is clear that changes have been made through the repositioning of internal walls, doorways, the creation of an ensuite shower room as opposed to an ensuite bathroom, and the creation of two storage areas. However, as the overall size of the unit would remain as originally proposed (86 sqm) and there is no obvious change in size to the stairwell access, ventilation shaft and internal hallway, I cannot be satisfied that there could be an increase in room sizes without increasing the overall size of the unit. I therefore give the Council's evidence more weight in this regard.

Accordingly, even though the amended plans show room sizes and overall unit size now comply with London Plan D6, I cannot be satisfied from the evidence before me that the proposal would result in acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge that the storage on the southern side has been significantly reduced in width. Whilst this space may only be approximately 0.7 metres in width, plans show the door opens outwards, which would retain space internally and could allow a person to walk in. I have nothing before me which demonstrates the floor-to-ceiling height of this space would be compromised. Therefore, given that this space would be used in conjunction with the storage area on the northern side and those shown within the bedrooms, it is neither for the Council nor myself to determine how a storage space could function.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to provide adequate living conditions to the intended future occupiers. It therefore conflicts with Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) and GR1 and GR3A of the Local Plan, which collectively seek to ensure that development provides at least the minimum GIA. There would also be conflict with the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which seeks, amongst other matters, that new homes are fit for purpose and provide the minimum space standards.

Vehicular access serving the rear of [site address] is predominantly from [address]. I saw that this road, which is also shared with a number of different uses, had a mix of parking restrictions, including double yellow lines and a [name]. There were also several parking areas which led off from [address], including a strip of linear parking bays almost immediately to the rear of [site address] , beyond a slim footway. Parking to the rear of the appeal site was mostly private, as indicated by the signage displayed.

I also saw that pedestrian access to the rear from [address] could be obtained by, amongst other means, a footway between the appeal premises and the adjacent building No 21 via a set of steps. This access point forms one of the main pedestrianised links between [address] and the rear.

Directly at the top of this pedestrianised link, when walking from [address], is a slim footway which extends in both directions for a limited distance. The section situated to the rear wall of [site address] is set alongside existing private car parking spaces. I saw that after the footway ends, pedestrians have no option but to walk in the carriageway.

At the top of the pedestrian link and beyond the slim footway is an area marked out in yellow hatching which, at the time of my site visit, had three commercial-sized refuse bins set within it. [name] walked up from [address], these refuse bins prevented me from walking straight over and into the carriageway and instead directed me via the footway to either the right or the left.

The proposed refuse and cycle store would be located on part of the current slim footway between [site address] and the existing private car parking spaces. Part of this footway is shown to be within the appellant’s red-line boundary6. [name] note the Council does not dispute that the appellant may have some rights over the land, the Council contend that this area is part of the public highway network. The positioning of the proposed refuse and cycle store would therefore block part of the highway, which is used as a pedestrianised link. It would prevent pedestrians from walking to the rear of [site address] when exiting the pedestrianised link from [address]. This would then force them to walk in the opposite direction when reaching the top and then into the carriageway, elongating their route.

[name] note pedestrians are required to walk within the carriageway at some point, when walking towards [address], this footway enables them to walk off the carriageway and away from any conflict with moving vehicles for a period of time. The blocking of this footway by the proposal would therefore extend the period of time pedestrians would be required to walk within the carriageway and, in doing so, extend the period and likelihood that pedestrians would come into conflict with moving vehicles. The position of the refuse and cycle store would therefore compromise pedestrian safety.

I acknowledge that there is no dispute that the proposed development would satisfy the Council's quantum requirement for refuse and cycles for a 3-bed five-person unit, and in this regard, the proposal would make adequate provision in quantitative terms. It has been brought to my attention that existing occupiers within [site address] currently use those refuse bins associated with [address]. This has not been disputed by the appellant. The existing occupiers within [site address] therefore have no storage within the building or within an easily accessible location. I have nothing to persuade me that the proposed storage subject to this appeal would be for the sole use of future occupants of the proposal before me and would not be used by other existing residents of [site address] .

I note that the appellant has previously sought to discharge7 refuse and cycle storage with regard to the conversion of the first and second floors into 8 flats, and that this application was subsequently refused. I also acknowledge that the appellant contends the current residential accommodation is a consequence of two prior approval applications8 and that these were absent from conditions relating to refuse storage. 6 JM-029-PL-0003-01 7 P/3855/21 relating to planning permission ref P/2503/20 8 P/0509/14 and P/0509/14

My attention has been drawn to a current open enforcement case. Whilst this process is a separate matter and falls outside the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal, the proposed development would nevertheless intensify the residential use within [site address] . I therefore must ensure that the proposed development functions well for the existing and future occupants of [site address] and those nearby. This is to ensure that the proposed development is well designed and adds to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development, and creates places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, as is a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I saw that the ground levels rise from [site address] towards [address] and [address], and there was an allocated bin and cycle store to the side of [address], which had signage indicating that it was for its occupants. The Council contend that the refuse storage associated with Milburn House9 is for the intended occupiers only. Even if existing occupants of [site address] currently use the refuse and cycle storage associated with [address], its location requires occupiers to walk some distance to dispose of their refuse or retrieve their bicycles. Its location and the change in level between the two sites do not provide existing occupants with a practical route.

The Council contend that the storage associated with [address] is not in the approved location and its size does not provide sufficient capacity for the intended occupiers of [address]. A matter on which the appellant has been predominantly silent. Even if this storage area could accommodate all the refuse requirements for existing occupants of [address] and [site address] , I have nothing to demonstrate that [address] will remain in the same ownership, or to persuade me that it functions well for the existing occupants.

Moreover, if I were to have found the location of the proposed store to be acceptable, I am not satisfied that the existing occupants would not use the proposed store associated with the additional unit. As such, without the capacity to make sufficient arrangements for refuse for occupants of [site address] , it is more than likely that the consequences of such would result in the overspilling of refuse onto the public areas. This would in turn fail to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Even if all conditions relating to planning permission [name]/1853/19/PRIOR have been discharged including, amongst other matters, cycle storage,10 from my findings above, I have nothing to suggest that the proposed refuse would be for the sole use of future occupants. As such, I give this and the discharge of Condition C1 limited weight.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the location of the proposed cycle and refuse store arrangements would fail to provide safe routes for pedestrians, which would likely result in conflict with vehicles and compromise highway safety. It would also likely result in refuse overspill onto the public areas as a consequence of the lack of capacity for [site address] . Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policies T4, T7, D3.D(1) and D3.D(4) of the London Plan insofar as they seek to ensure development does not increase road danger, provide adequate space for servicing and storage, enhance the local context, and minimise negative impacts on the environment and public realm. There would also be conflict with Local Plan Policies GR1, GR3A, Strategic Policy 10 and M2, which collectively seek all development to ensure that 9 P/0379/18 10 Condition C1, [name]/3351/21 dated 8 February 2022. there are no inhibiting barriers to access and use, achieve active travel and give priority to the convenience of pedestrians. There would also be conflict with Local Plan Policy CE1, which seeks to ensure that all proposals make on-site provision for general waste and recycling.

The Council, in its reason for refusal, referred to London Policy D6. However, this policy relates to housing quality and standards and is not determinative in relation to the main issue. The Council also contend that the proposal would be contrary to Policy M3 of the Local Plan, however this relates to deliveries, servicing and construction. I have nothing before me to demonstrate that this is applicable to the main issue.

I acknowledge that the proposal follows pre-application discussions; however, from the evidence before me, I have nothing to demonstrate that these included the proposed position of the proposed store.

The absence of objections with regard to, amongst other matters, design, heritage, drainage and daylight/sunlight are neutral matters in the overall planning balance as these would be a likely requirement of a well-designed development.

Even if the proposed development would be setback from the front, side and rear elevations, this is not determinative to the main issues.

The appeal proposal would result in the creation of one new dwelling, thereby supporting the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. However, the benefits of one new dwelling attract limited weight. Furthermore, the proposal would be harmful to pedestrian safety and would likely result in refuse overspill onto the public areas. As such, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the harm to pedestrian safety.

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. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.