Appeal 6003119

The appeal is dismissed.

An update to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in draft for consultation purposes in December 2025. The content of this draft consultation document does not materially alter the national policy context for the assessment of this appeal.

It is considered that the main issue is whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living standards for the future occupiers of flat E.

The appeal property is a 3-storey building located at the junction of [address] and [address] with a betting office at ground floor level. The first and second floors are in the process of being converted to flats following a prior approval application having been submitted to the council for a change of use from office to residential (Ref 24/2962/PN2). As part of this proposal the floorplan drawings indicated locations for refuse/recycling containers and the parking of bicycles for flats C and D utilising rooms within the basement. However, prior approval applications do not formally approve the provision of cycle parking and refuse storage. Instead, the consideration of such applications is focused upon other specific criteria, including the size of any accommodation and highway safety.

The proposed development includes the erection of a roof extension which would create a 4th storey and provide a 3-bedroom flat (referred to as flat E) in addition to what is being constructed pursuant to the prior approval application. The submitted drawings identify that the cycle parking and refuse/recycling storage for flats C, D and E would be provided within the basement rooms. There would be adequate space within the basement rooms to accommodate the required 7 refuse/recycling containers and to provide the number of cycle parking spaces to satisfy the council’s guidance.

As was evident from the site visit, the access to the basement rooms is via a narrow winding staircase which has two 90o bends. At the bottom of the staircase there is another 90o bend to access the doors to the proposed cycle parking and refuse/recycling storage rooms. The council’s concerns about the ease of accessing these proposed cycle parking and refuse/recycling storage rooms are well founded because of the winding nature and width of the staircase.

The occupiers of flats C, D and E would use the winding staircase to access the proposed cycle parking room. The proposed wide doorway should enable cycles to be parked within the room. However, it would be difficult for a future occupier of flat E with a cycle to gain convenient and easy access from street level to the proposed parking room via the winding staircase, especially if another person with a cycle is coming down the staircase. This judgement equally applies to an occupier of flat E carrying a cycle from the proposed parking room up to [address].

The availability of cycle parking stands on [address] close to the proposed access to flats C, D and E does not change this judgement because these are primarily for public use rather than exclusively for the occupiers of the proposed flats, including the future occupiers of flat E.

There are also no details about how, if they were full, the refuse/storage containers indicated on the drawings could easily be carried or dragged up the winding staircase by the occupiers of flat E from the basement to access street level to enable roadside collection to occur. This judgement is reached with the knowledge that the containers would be narrower than the width of the staircase but it is based upon the practicality of the future occupiers of flat E being able to easily lift or drag full refuse/recycling containers up the winding staircase.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would not provide satisfactory living standards for the future occupiers of flat E and, as such, it would conflict with Policy SI 7 of the London Plan (LP) and Policies IM4, DH1 and H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (RGLP). Amongst other matters, these policies require development to be designed for the needs of cyclists and with adequate, flexible and easily accessible storage and collection space.

It is not considered that [name] T2 and T3 concerning healthy streets and transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding are of direct relevance to the main issue. [name](d) and IM(c) are also not of direct relevance because these are general policies rather than specifically concerning the provision of cycle parking and refuse storage for a residential scheme of the type proposed.

The appellant has identified that the council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land and this claim is not challenged by the council. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework, applies to the determination of this appeal. The application of the presumption is only given moderate weight in the assessment of this appeal because only 1 additional flat would be delivered. However, the erection of a flat on the roof of the property in an accessible location would represent an efficient use of land and is given significant weight in the determination of this appeal.

There are no reasons for a different assessment from the council’s to be reached concerning the principle of the proposed roof extension and that there would not be any harm caused to the setting of the East Greenwich Conservation Area. Compliance with the statutory duty and policy requirements of the Framework regarding heritage considerations is given neutral weight in the assessment of the appeal scheme.

The overall judgement is that the conflict with the relevant development plan policies and the adverse impact associated with the inadequate living standards for the future occupiers of flat E significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits associated with the erection of an additional flat in an accessible location where there is an unchallenged shortfall in housing land supply. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.