Appeal 6002792

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council appear to have amended the description of development, as stated in the application form, to include the change of use of the first floor. There is however no evidence before me to demonstrate that this change was agreed. As such, the change of use of the first floor does not fall under the scope of the application and appeal.

At appeal stage, the appellant has provided an addendum to a daylight and sunlight report, which was provided at application stage. The addendum considers daylight and sunlight in units 1 and 2 on the first floor. However, as noted above, the change of use of the first floor does not fall under the scope of this application and appeal. It has therefore not been necessary for me to consider this addendum further.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in units 5 and 6, with regard to the provision of natural light and outlook.

The appeal property relates to a three-storey building, with commercial uses on the ground floor and first floor levels, and two self-contained flats at second floor level, to the front of the property. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by commercial and residential uses.

Units 5 and 6 would be located on the second floor, towards to rear of the building. In terms of natural light, the windows serving the main rooms would be obscurely glazed to a height of 1.8 metres, with only the top opening providing clear glazing. The bathroom windows would be fully obscurely glazed.

Notwithstanding the above, the submitted daylight and sunlight report details how both units 5 and 6 would meet target daylight and sunlight values set out in the BRE guidance. The Council has not provided any empirical evidence to the contrary. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the scheme would provide acceptable living conditions to the future occupiers of units 5 and 6, with regard to the provision of natural light.

Turning to outlook, as set out, the windows in the proposed flats would be primarily obscurely glazed. The only true outlook would be provided through the narrow top openings of the windows. Given the small size of the top openings, the outlook would be very limited, offering small views of the rear yard area and the sky. The obscurely glazed sections of the windows would not offer any meaningful outlook. The bathroom windows of units 5 and 6 would also not offer any meaningful outlook, as they would be fully obscurely glazed.

The appellant contends that the restricted outlook would look down towards the rear yard area, which is not pleasing. However, this does not justify the extremely limited outlook that would be provided for future occupiers. For the reasons set out, I do not consider that units 5 and 6 would provide an acceptable level of outlook for future occupiers.

I am mindful that the first-floor benefits from prior approval for the change of use from use class E to create four studio flats (Ref: DM2024/01293). Under this approval, the layout of units 1 and 2, including the obscurely glazed windows, would be very similar to the layouts of units 5 and 6. The appellant contends that as the proposed flats would be set higher in the building, they would in fact provide improved outlook in comparison to units 1 and 2. However, for the reasons set out, I do not consider that the proposed flats would provide an acceptable level of outlook. The prior approval application does not justify allowing additional flats that would fail to provide acceptable levels of outlook.

To conclude on the main issue, based on the evidence before me, the scheme would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of natural light. It would however fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook. As a whole, the scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (SLP) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality housing that provides acceptable standards of living for future occupiers.

The Council’s case officer report appears to suggest that the scheme may not provide adequate ventilation. This is however not referenced in the refusal reason. [name] am dismissing the appeal, I have not considered this matter further.

The principle of residential development in this location may be acceptable. There may also be no harm in relation to design, highway safety, and impact on neighbours. Cycle storage would be provided, and the proposed flats would meet the required space standards. The appeal property is not listed, and the site is not within a conservation area. These are however neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The scheme would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook. The proposed extension would however facilitate a small communal roof deck with landscaping, which could also be used by residents of the existing flats, and those already consented under the prior approval process. It would provide an improved internal access to the existing second floor flats, which may enhance security and ensure weather protection. The proposed units would make effective use of land, providing much needed housing in an accessible location where higher density developments are encouraged. Whilst these are considered important benefits, given the scale of the development, I afford them limited weight. Overall, the benefits would not outweigh the harm to the living conditions of future occupiers, to which I afford significant weight.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.