Appeal 6003136

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. The description on the decision notice and the appeal form is different to from that stated on the application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that the revised description set out on the decision has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application form. I do not consider that this has prejudiced any of the parties and I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing in the Borough; • whether suitable living conditions would be provided for future occupants of the proposed development, with regard to the provision of internal and external amenity space; • the effect of the proposed on the integrity of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (EFSAC); • whether the proposal would encourage sustainable modes of transport and the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to car parking and pedestrian safety; and • whether the suitable cycle parking facilities would be provided for future occupants of the proposed development.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, end-of-terrace dwelling. The existing dwelling has three first-floor bedrooms. One of the first-floor bedrooms and a ground floor guest room are located within a two-storey addition to the original dwelling, which previously comprised a two-bedroom property. The plans indicate that the existing dwelling has a gross internal area (GIA) of [address] metres (sqm), comprising 64 sqm at ground floor level and 46 sqm at first floor level.

The proposal is for the sub-division of the dwelling to form a two-storey one bedroom dwelling and the retention of the existing dwelling as a two-bedroom property. Policy 20 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 2024 (LP) states that the conversion of a larger home to smaller self-contained homes will not be allowed where the house has a gross original internal floor space of less than 124sqm. As the existing dwelling has a GIA of 110 sqm, the proposal would conflict with Policy 20.

Policy 15 of the LP states that a diverse range of housing will be supported and sets out a preferred dwelling mix for market housing of 20% for 1 bed homes, 50% for 2 bed homes and 30% for 3+ bed homes. Given the limited scale of the proposal, for the creation of one additional dwelling, the proposal would not be able to fully comply with the preferred mix of housing. Nonetheless, the provision of a one-bedroom dwelling and the retention of a two-bedroom dwelling would provide mix of housing that would partly meet the preferred mix of dwelling sizes set out in Policy 15.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the supply of family housing in the Borough. The development therefore conflicts with Policy 20 of the LP, as set out above.

The proposed dwelling would consist of a one-bedroom property with accommodation spread over two-storeys. The dwelling would have a GIA of 37sqm, according to the plans. Policy 56 of the LP requires proposals to meet the prescribed minimum internal space standards set out in Table 14.2. In addition, Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LonP) states that dwellings must provide at least the gross internal floor area and built-in storage area set out in Table 3.1. The minimum gross internal floor areas set out in Table 14.2 of the LP replicate those within Table 3.1 of the LonP.

The GIA of 37sqm would accord with the required area of 37sqm for a one-bedroom, one-person one-storey dwelling. However, the proposed dwelling would occupy two-storeys and, given the size of the bedroom, could accommodate two-persons. While the GIA does not include the roof space, integrated storage solutions or the potential reconfiguration of floors, the substantive evidence does not demonstrate that the minimum GIA for a one-bedroom, two-storey dwelling could be achieved or that development significantly below the standards would be justified.

The bedroom for the proposed dwelling would have a floor area of 14sqm, which is in excess of the requirements for both a single bedroom and a double bedroom set out in Policy D6 of the LonP. The existing dwelling would retain two bedrooms. While the floor area for Bed 1 would fall below the requirements for a double bedroom and Bed 2 would fall below the requirement for a single bedroom, these are existing circumstances where the size of the bedrooms within the dwelling predate the standards.

The external area associated with the proposed dwelling comprises 18sqm to the side of the building. Policy 56 of the LP requires that houses should be provide a minimum of 50sqm of private external amenity space per dwelling. While the garden size of the proposed dwelling is significantly below this, the policy states that one bed maisonettes should provide a minimum of 10sqm of external amenity space per dwelling. Given the size and arrangement of accommodation, linked by the internal stair, the dwelling could be described as a maisonette. Consequently, the external amenity space would be in excess of the 10sqm required by Policy 56.

I conclude suitable living conditions would not be provided for future occupants of the proposed development, with regard to the provision of internal space. The development therefore conflicts with Policy 56 of the LP and Policy D6 of the LonP, as set out above.

The site falls within the ‘Zone of Influence’ (ZOI) for the EFSAC. The Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment identifies that all new residential development within this ZOI constitutes a likely significant effect on the sensitive interest features of the SAC due to increased recreational pressure, either when considered ‘alone’ or ‘in combination’ with other plans or schemes.

For schemes comprising one or more units of residential accommodation, a new package of costed [name] (SAMM) was prepared by the City of [name] of Epping Forest and was adopted in 2022, with the agreement of Natural England. The new SAMM levy requires a contribution of £650 per unit from all new residential schemes. As the proposal would include one additional unit, a total contribution of £650 would be required in this instance.

In the absence of a completed planning obligation to secure the SAMM levy, there is no mechanism for securing the required contribution. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Policy 81 of the LP, which states that the Council will protect and enhance the natural environment of the EFSAC and seek to ensure that development proposals contribute to the avoidance and mitigation of adverse recreational and urban effects on the EFSAC.

The proposal would provide one car parking space for each of the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling to the front of the site. Vehicles would access the spaces via the existing dropped kerb and crossing the pedestrian footway between the carriageway and the site. On street parking is available within [name], which is not within a [name] (CPZ). The site has a PTAL rating of 2, indicating low accessibility to public transport.

Policies 60 and 66 of the LP seek to encourage and promote active and sustainable transport and to reduce car dominance in terms of congestion and excessive parking on the street. Policy 66 states that all new residential development should be car-free, which should be secured though a planning obligation to restrict new residents from accessing parking permits within existing CPZs or ensuring future CPZs are in place before a development is occupied. The appellant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that the proposal would be car-free. However, there is no mechanism before me that would secure the development to be car-free.

Given the limited scale of the proposal, which includes on-site car parking, and the location of the site in an area with a low PTAL rating where the roads are not subject to a CPZ, the development would not result in significant congestion or excessive parking on the street. Nevertheless, given the absence of a completed planning obligation, the development conflicts with Policies 60 and 66.

The dwellings would retain the existing parking spaces to the front of the site. While access to the space to the front of the existing retained dwelling would be awkward due to the offset position of the dropped kerb, this would reflect the existing circumstances at the site, which also involves vehicles crossing the pedestrian footway when entering and exiting the site. Given the low vehicle speeds and the openness and width of the footway, the continued use of the spaces would not demonstrably harm pedestrian safety. Moreover, pedestrians would be able to access both the proposed and retained dwellings.

I conclude that the proposal would not encourage sustainable modes of transport. The development therefore accords with Policies 60 and 66, as set out above.

Policy 61 of the LP states that proposals will be expected to ensure the provision of secure on-site cycle parking facilities. The Council states that the proposal would require 1.5 cycle parking spaces for the proposed dwelling and 2 spaces for the retained dwelling. The plans do not include cycle parking facilities within the site.

The required secure cycle parking facilities could be accommodated within the external areas of the site, but would reduce the usable amenity space for each dwelling. Nonetheless, given the size and layout of the external space, and the relatively small facilities required, appropriate secure cycle parking facilities could be secured through a condition if I were minded to allow the appeal.

I conclude that suitable cycle parking facilities would be provided for future occupants of the proposal. The development therefore accords with Policy 61 of the LP, which states that all new development will be expected to support a shift to active transport modes and encourage an increase in walking and cycling.

The proposed development would deliver a single dwelling, which would provide a boost to the supply of housing through the efficient use of land. In addition, the proposal would deliver social and economic benefits following occupation through the use of facilities and services in the area. However, the contribution of a single dwelling and the associated benefits are limited by the small scale of development proposed.

Taking the stated benefits together, collectively there would be limited benefits associated with the appeal scheme. However, the harm that would result from conflict with the development plan in respect to the loss of family housing, the inadequate internal space, the harm to the integrity of the EFSAC and sustainable modes of transport, would be of greater significance.

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.