Appeal 6002864

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council amended the description of development during the consideration of the application to one which is more concise and removes superfluous text from that given in the application form. I have taken the description above which also appears in the appeal form. I am therefore satisfied that the main parties would not be prejudiced by use of the above description. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to internal floorspace, outdoor amenity space and noise.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey mid-terrace commercial property situated on an arterial route. The surrounding area has a mixed-use character, with commercial frontages along the main road, some with residential uses above, and residential properties situated to the rear. A large single storey extension now occupies the entirety of the plot to the rear, leaving the site with no external space.

The proposal includes a first-floor rear extension and rear dormer to facilitate the change of use of the first and second floors into 3 separate flats. The ground floor would be internally reconfigured to provide access to the flats from the front.

The bedrooms of the proposed development exceed the minimum standards for rooms with 2 bedspaces within the ‘Technical housing standards - nationally described space standards’ (2015), which have been adopted within Policy JP-H3 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039 (March 2024) (the DPD). Notwithstanding the stated intended single occupancy, I find it reasonable that the size of the bedrooms is used to determine how the occupancy of the flats should be assessed, which in this case would be one bedroom, 2 person occupancy. This occupancy establishes the minimum gross internal floor areas that the DPD states must be provided. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis, which is consistent with the Council’s

I therefore find that Flats 1 and 2 would fail to meet the minimum standard of 50 sq.m. [name] 1 would only have a marginal shortfall, Flat 2 would be substantially below the minimum standard. The undersized living space within these flats would result in cramped conditions and would therefore provide inadequate living conditions for future occupants. I have considered whether it would be possible to limit the occupation of the flats to one person, however, I find that such a condition would fail to meet the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), with particular regard to enforceability.

Section 3 of the General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) stipulates minimum sizes for private sitting-out areas for new flat/apartment developments. However, the development would not provide any private outside amenity space for the future occupiers. The appellant contends that similar arrangements exist within this terrace block and that, in this urban location, with nearby gym and leisure facilities, public parks and green spaces within walking distance, the absence of private amenity space is not, in itself, grounds for refusal. However, limited information on these facilities has been provided. I am therefore not satisfied that these would mitigate the lack of provision of private outside amenity space. Furthermore, given the undersized living accommodation proposed, the lack of any outside amenity space further compounds the detrimental impact on the amenity of future occupiers.

The proposed accommodation would be sited above an existing commercial premises. No noise assessment has been submitted in connection with the proposal. While the Council’s Pollution Control Officer did not object to the application, they recommended that conditions relating to acoustic insulation and ventilation were necessary. Such a condition is also proposed by the appellant.

In the absence of a noise assessment, there is nothing to indicate how substantial such a scheme might be or the effect of its implementation on other matters. Nor that it would be possible. This condition would therefore be unreasonable. Permitting the application without such a condition means that I cannot be satisfied that the proposed scheme would provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants in terms of noise.

I have identified harm to the multiple matters of internal floorspace, outdoor amenity space and noise. Taken together this would result in wholly unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, and the nature of this harm is serious.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor amenity space, internal floorspace and noise. It would therefore conflict with Policy CG4 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2011) and [name]-H3.1., JP- P1.15.a. and JP-C5:1.k. of the DPD which together seek to secure new development which provides a high level of amenity and mitigates impacts from noise pollution. The SPD supports these policy aims.

My attention has been drawn to a number of appeals (APP/Z4310/W/20/3262111, APP/X1118/W/18/3193299 and APP/H1840/W/21/3289648) with regard to the need for outside amenity space, the assessment of the level of occupation and internal floorspace and the use of conditions to secure noise mitigation. However, I am not provided with these decisions and, based on the evidence in this case, these references do not appear to relate to specific appeals which reference the relevant matters in this appeal. Therefore, I am not satisfied as to the accuracy of this material. I afford it little weight in this decision.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers. However, this is a neutral factor which does not weigh in the developments favour.

I have found that the scheme would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore not accord with the development plan as a whole. This is a matter that counts significantly against the scheme.

However, the Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. This requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies.

The proposal would make a modest but worthwhile contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location and would make efficient use of the underused building. However, given the small number of units proposed, these benefits attract only limited weight. On the other hand, the development would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers such that it would not secure a well-designed place or make an effective use of land in this regard.

Evidence as to the extent of the housing land supply has not been provided, however even if there were to be a significant undersupply, the serious adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply in this case.

For the reasons given above, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.