Appeal 6002972

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit it was evident that development has commenced and is substantially complete. Nonetheless, I have removed the reference to the development being part retrospective from the description of development in the heading above, as this is not a form of development.

At appeal stage an amended floor plan, to revise the parking layout, was submitted. This plan reduces the number of parking spaces from three to two spaces, in response to the second refusal reason. Given the nature of the change, in that it arguably results in a lesser form of development, I do not consider that the proposed amendment would introduce a fundamental change to the application. I also do not consider that it is so changed that to consider it would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such consultation. The Council have had the opportunity to review and comment on the amended plan through the appeal process. I have therefore based my decision on this amended plan.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the development provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers, by way of the provision of outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy, ventilation, and natural light; and • whether the development provides adequate parking provision.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey semi-detached property on [address]. The property has been converted into three self-contained flats, with two on the ground floor and one on the first floor. The ground floor flats each benefit from private outdoor amenity space to the rear, and a parking area is provided to the frontage. Surrounding development comprises mainly semi-detached residential dwellings.

Whilst the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document does not constitute formal planning policy, Policy D6 of the London Plan (LP), which forms part of the development plan, requires a minimum of [address] metres (sqm) of private outdoor space for 1-2 person dwellings, and an extra 1sqm for each additional occupant. Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] [name] (CS) also requires development proposals to provide adequate private and/or communal amenity space. Flat 2, which provides two bedrooms and approximately three bedspaces, does not provide any outdoor space.

[name] acknowledge that the site is situated close to several public parks and green spaces, the policy expectation is clear that residential development proposals should provide private outdoor space, or communal amenity space. I am therefore not satisfied that the sites accessibility to parks offsets the need to provide occupiers with their own outdoor space. The site’s constraints, in that it involves the conversion of a first floor, also does not adequately justify the lack of outdoor space for occupiers of flat 2.

I am not satisfied that the schemes overprovision of outdoor space for the ground floor flats mitigates the need to provide occupiers of flat 2 with any. In any case, the overprovision of outdoor space for these flats is not of any benefit to the occupiers of flat 2. For the reasons set out, the scheme fails to provide adequate living conditions for the occupiers of flat 2, with regard to outdoor amenity space.

The Council raise concerns regarding the outlook from flat 3. Although the flat is single aspect, with no outlook provided through the solid front door, the large, glazed sliding doors, which serve the main room, provide views into the generously sized garden area. Given the size of the window, coupled with the nature of a studio flat in that it only has one habitable room, I am satisfied that flat 3 provides an acceptable level of outlook.

The Council has not substantiated why the scheme would not ensure adequate privacy in its case officer report. The rear windows serving flat 1 face out into a private rear garden area, ensuring privacy to these rooms. However, the two bedrooms at the front of the property are served by windows which face out into the parking/entrance area to the front of the property. Given their positioning, occupiers of the other flats would be afforded with views into the rooms as they walk past the windows.

Nonetheless, the bedrooms would only likely be used during certain hours of the day. Occupants can use the large kitchen/living area or bedroom to the rear of the property at other times of the day, or times when they seek more privacy. Additionally, the number of occupiers associated with the other flats is relatively low, therefore any loss of privacy as a result of them walking past the windows would not be constant. The garden area is bordered by a tall fence, thereby ensuring privacy.

Flat 2 is situated on the first floor, ensuring privacy for occupiers. The glazed doors serving flat 3 face out into a fenced garden area, thereby ensuring privacy. Overall, for the reasons set out, I am satisfied that the scheme ensures adequate privacy for occupiers.

Although flat 3 is single aspect, it benefits from large, glazed sliding doors and a number of rooflights. The Council raise concerns regarding the lack of cross ventilation; however, I have not been directed to any planning policy which specifically mentions cross ventilation.

Policy D6 of the LP does discuss the importance of adequate passive ventilation. This term is not defined however in my mind this could mean trickle vents or stack ventilation. There is nothing before me in the evidence to suggest that such measures could not be ensured through the use of a planning condition, if the appeal were to be allowed. Given this, I am satisfied that the scheme is capable of ensuring adequate passive ventilation.

The Council raise concerns regarding the provision of natural light in flats 1 and 3. Each room in flat 1, excluding the bathroom, is served by windows or large sliding glazed doors. The windows on the rear elevation broadly face southeast, whilst those on the front broadly face northwest. Given the size, number and positioning of the windows and doors, they provide the flat with adequate levels of both sunlight and daylight throughout the day.

The large, glazed sliding doors on flat 3 face broadly southeast. Given their size and positioning, they provide the flat with adequate levels of sunlight and daylight throughout the day. The rooflights also provide additional natural light. I am satisfied that both flats 1 and 3 provide adequate levels of natural light.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme provides acceptable living conditions with regard to outlook, privacy, ventilation and natural light. It however fails to provide adequate living conditions for the occupiers of flat 2, with regard to the lack of outdoor amenity space. As a whole, the scheme is therefore contrary to Policies DM10 and DM13 of the CS and Policies D6 and S4 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, including the provision of outdoor space and space for recreation.

Based on the evidence before me, the site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 2, with 1 being the lowest and 6 being the highest. Policy T6.1 of the LP, as referenced by the appellant, requires a maximum provision of 2.5 parking spaces for a development of this size. The scheme provides two car parking spaces to the front of the site.

Based on the plans before me and my observations on my site visit, I see no reason why cars could not enter and exit the site to utilise the two parking spaces in a safe manner. Additionally, on my site visit it was evident that cars generally travel slowly along [address].

For the above reasons, I am therefore satisfied that the scheme provides adequate parking provision. The scheme complies with Policy CS7 of the CS and Policy T4 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure highway safety. I do not find any conflict with Policy T2 of the LP. This policy relates to healthy streets.

The property is not listed, and the site is not within a conservation area. It is also situated within flood zone 1. The scheme may not harm the character and appearance of the area, or neighbouring living conditions. Cycle storage and waste storage would also be provided and the scheme may comply with various other planning policies. These are however considered neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several other approved schemes in the surrounding area. The scheme at [address] (Ref: 20/03307/FUL) however provided outdoor space, as well as communal outdoor space, for each flat. The schemes at 29 & 29A The Causeway (Ref: 21/00279/FUL) and [address] (Ref: 23/00665/FUL) also provide outdoor amenity space for each property. I am therefore not satisfied that any of the above referenced approvals are directly comparable to the appeal before me. The scheme at [address] (Ref: 21/03143/FUL) was refused for failing to an acceptable standard of amenity space, amongst other reasons.

The evidence before me outlines how the Council can only demonstrate a 1.48- year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is a significant shortfall. In these circumstances paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

There is nothing before me to suggest that there are any policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11d)(i). Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11d(ii) applies such 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.

The scheme provides housing in a somewhat accessible location which is close to several public transport options and local parks. However, the closest district centre is 1.5km away. It would make efficient use of land, deliver a mix of housing sizes on a smaller site and assist the borough in meeting its housing target as set out in the LP. However, the benefits are tempered by the fact that the scheme would not provide any outdoor space for one of the flats. Overall, given the relatively small scale of development I attribute the benefits limited weight.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of its effect on the living conditions of occupiers would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in these circumstances.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.