Appeal 6003289

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of former disused gymnasium to create one self-contained one-bedroom apartment at [name] in North Building, [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00542/COU, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: PL01 [name]; PL02; PL03 and PL13 [name].

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would contribute to a suitable mix of housing to meet the housing needs of the area; and • whether the proposal would lead to the unacceptable loss of a community facility.

Policy LLP15 of the Local Luton Plan 2011-2031 November 2017 (LLP) states that provision will be made for residential development in the borough to help meet housing needs ensuring that the size, type, tenure provided reflects the identified housing need requirements of the area set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Council state that monitoring carried out through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has identified a considerable oversupply of one bedroom units between 2011/2012 and 2017/2018 with 2039 delivered compared with a SHMA need requirement of 420.

The scheme would result in the provision of a one bedroom apartment. Given the identified over supply of such dwelling types, the proposal would fail to positively contribute to a suitable mix of housing required to meet the housing needs of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to LLP Policies LLP1 and LLP15, which seek, amongst other things, that the delivery of housing, including the size of units, meets the needs of the area.

Policy LLP24 of the LLP states that development which would lead to the loss of community facilities will be permitted where, existing facilities elsewhere in a suitable location can meet the displaced needs; or it is unsuitable for alternative community uses for which there is a demonstrable need; or equivalent or better replacement facilities in terms of quantity and quality are provided in a suitable location.

The appeal site comprises a disused gym situated within a flatted development located in a residential area. I do not doubt the benefit that the gym provided to the residents when accessible previously, and I understand that it aided the health, wellbeing and social environment of those living in the flats.

The Council also refer to the fact that permission was granted previously to convert the gym in the adjacent block of flats, and that the provision of the gym before me now was identified as providing an alternative facility for those residents. However, the limited number of people who could use the gym, restricted to residents of the two small blocks of flats only, significantly limits any contribution that it could make as a community facility in my view.

Even if I were to consider the appeal site as a community facility limited in use to the residents of the flats only, I visited the local area during my site visit and noted the other gyms referred to by the appellant. They all appeared to be operational at the time of my site visit. Two were within approximately a ten minute walk of the site, with the closest being only a very short walk away. The others were further afield but still within the urban environment and therefore accessible. [name] find that they would not be as convenient as an on-site facility, these other gyms would provide a range of alternative facilities.

I recognise the frustrations of the residents in response to the gym closing and how this closure was carried out. Interested parties have confirmed that there was a demand for the facility, and I acknowledge the number of objections submitted. Nevertheless, the closure of the gym without consultation with residents and the implications for leaseholders and tenants in terms of the service charge and what facilities are provided by the management company and owner are private matters that would be addressed outside of the planning system. The effect on property values is not a material planning consideration.

I therefore find that the proposal would not result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility. Therefore, it would not conflict with LLP Policies LLP1 and LLP24 which seek, amongst other things, that community facilities are protected unless certain criteria are met and that sustainable development is delivered.

Objections have been raised based on concerns about parking provision. One parking space is identified on the drawings for the proposal and the Council consider this to be sufficient. I have been provided with no substantiated evidence that would lead me to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in this respect.

I note the concerns of interested parties in terms of the upkeep and management of the building, nevertheless, this is a private matter that weighs neither for nor against the proposal before me now.

The appellant asserts that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply identifying a figure of 4.32 years. The Council has not refuted this point. Consequently, Paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged which states that 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.

As the development is contrary to LLP Policies LLP1 and LLP15 with regard to housing mix, there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposal would provide one additional dwelling in an existing residential area which could be delivered quickly. There would be some economic benefits during the conversion works and after with future occupants supporting local services and facilities. Given the scale of the proposal, I attach limited weight to these benefits.

Turning to the disadvantages, paragraph 61 of the Framework states that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community. However, paragraph 79 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should monitor progress in building out sites which have permission in order to maintain the supply of housing. In this regard, whilst the Council recorded an over delivery of one bedroom units previously, the evidence provided is of some age, both in terms of identifying the need and what has been delivered so far. No explanation is provided as to why this old data is relied upon. Consequently, in the specific circumstances of this case, I attach limited weight to this conflict.

I have found that the proposal would not result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility. Nevertheless, this would be a neutral consideration.

I therefore find that the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning permission should be granted.

There have been no conditions suggested in the event of the appeal being allowed. However, in light of the advice contained within paragraph 57 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and approved plans to define the terms of the permission. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that these are sufficient in this case.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, specifically the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.