Appeal 6003436

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended drawings have been submitted with the appeal. Whilst the appellant indicates the amendments would reduce the size of one bedroom in each unit, they would also include other changes to the overall internal floorspace of the proposed first-floor flat and re-designate a bedroom as a study.

In deciding whether to accept these amended drawings, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (2026). It advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that what is considered at appeal should be essentially the same proposal that was before the Council and interested parties at the application stage. The submitted amendments are substantially different to the original scheme. Accordingly, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the plans originally submitted to, and considered by, the Council.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the provision of family-sized dwellings in the Borough; and • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to internal space, private outdoor amenity space, and privacy.

Policy H(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014) (the RGLP) seeks to retain small and medium-sized family dwellings. As explained in the supporting text of the RGLP, a family-sized dwelling is a unit comprising three or more bedrooms.

The appeal property is a modest two-storey, four-bedroom, mid-terrace dwellinghouse, with a rear garden, situated within an established residential street. The appeal property is therefore of sufficient size to accommodate a family and is characteristic of the type of dwellings that Policy H(b) seeks to retain.

Policy H(b) states that the subdivision of a terraced residential property will not be permitted where the original premises has less than 130sqm of net floor area. There is no dispute that the appeal property’s net floor area is below this threshold. Nevertheless, the appellant asserts that the floor area shortfall would be minor and that the appeal property, which has a net floor area of around 119sqm, would not perform materially differently from one of 130sqm or more in terms of suitability for conversion.

However, since the proposal would subdivide the existing four-bedroom house into two self-contained two-bedroom flats, the harm arising from the shortfall against the floorspace standard is self-evident as neither of the resultant flats would be a family-sized dwelling. The proposal would result in the net loss of one family-sized dwelling, which Policy H(b) seeks to protect.

The appellant contends that the appeal property is larger than many family-sized dwellings in the Borough. In any case, to be deemed suitable for conversion, all dwellings would need to satisfy the requirements of Policy H(b), including its size thresholds.

Whilst the appellant asserts that the proposal would comply with all other relevant requirements of Policy H(b), this would not justify the loss of a family-sized dwelling.

The provision of two-bedroom flats would align with identified demand for market dwellings of this size, as set out in the housing needs evidence at Table 8 of the RGLP. However, the table also indicates demand for family-sized homes. This reinforces the policy objective of retaining the existing family-sized housing stock.

As set out above, the appeal property would not meet the minimum net floor area requirement for conversions of dwellings, and as a consequence the proposal would result in the loss of a small to medium-sized family dwelling. For this reason, the proposal would conflict with RGLP Policy H(b). Living conditions for future occupants

Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) states that any bedroom exceeding 11.5sqm in floor area provides two bedspaces. The submitted plans show that all bedrooms in the proposed flats would exceed this floor area requirement and therefore would be double-occupancy rooms. On this basis, each flat is a single-storey, two-bedroom unit, capable of accommodating up to four persons.

London Plan Policy D6 requires dwellings of this type to provide a minimum gross internal area (GIA) of 70sqm. This minimum requirement is aligned with the government’s [name] Standards1. The GIA of each of the proposed flats would fall below this standard. As a result, future occupiers of the proposed flats would experience a cramped internal living environment.

The appellant suggests planning conditions could be imposed to secure compliance with the internal space standard, such as altering the internal layout to reduce the occupancy rate of the proposed dwellings. However, this would substantially modify, and thus contradict the design of the proposal as shown on the submitted plans. It would therefore undermine the precision and enforceability of any planning permission, and such conditions would not be reasonable.

Where there are no higher local standards in the borough’s development plan documents, London Plan Policy D6 requires a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space for one to two person dwellings and an additional 1sqm per additional occupant. The policy also expects these outdoor amenity spaces to be practical and offer good amenity. The flats would be served by a communal rear garden and therefore would provide no private outdoor space for either dwelling.

RGLP Policy H5 requires flatted developments to provide a good-sized balcony, terrace or enclosed communal garden. This requirement does not exceed the standard set by London Plan Policy D6. Moreover, section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires any conflict between policies to be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the development plan, which in this instance is London Plan Policy D6.

Notwithstanding the above, the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Statement (2023) (the SPD) advises that, in the conversion of multi-storey houses into flats, the shared use of existing large gardens will be encouraged where adequate access is possible for all flats. In terms of communal outside amenity spaces, Table 3.2 of the London Plan also states that these should be designed to be easily accessible from all the related dwellings. 1 Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015)

The first-floor flat would have no direct access to the rear garden space. Future occupiers would need to exit the building via the front entrance, walk along the street to the side of [address], and then pass through a narrow alleyway via a metal gate to reach the rear garden through the rear access door. This long and indirect route to the garden would not encourage frequent use by the future occupiers, and it would not be practical or convenient for day-to-day use, for example for drying clothes or leisure use. Consequently, the proposed access arrangement to the rear garden for the first-floor flat would not be adequate, contrary to the advice in the SPD. It would therefore fail to provide future occupiers of the first-floor flat with a suitable and practical form of outdoor amenity space.

The appellant suggests a condition could be imposed to secure the provision of a private garden for each flat by dividing the existing rear garden. However, no details have been provided to show how the subdivision of the garden would be achieved, and therefore I cannot be certain that such a condition would ensure the resultant garden spaces would be accessible, usable, and of suitable quality, nor am I able to properly assess other effects of any subdivision, such as the visual impacts of boundary treatments.

The communal garden would directly abut the rear-facing windows of the ground-floor flat. As such, the proposed layout would allow direct overlooking of rooms through windows by users of the communal garden. This would be intrusive and provide inadequate privacy for future occupiers of the ground-floor flat.

Whilst the appellant suggests that privacy concerns could be resolved through a planning condition, no draft condition has been provided to this effect. Given the lack of detail, I am unable to be certain as to the effect that any privacy measures would have on the outlook from the ground-floor flat or on the quality of the communal garden. Therefore, I cannot conclude that such a condition would be reasonable.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants due to inadequate internal space, the lack of suitable and practical private outdoor amenity space particularly for occupants of the first-floor flat, and the poor standard of privacy that would be experienced by occupants of the ground-floor flat. The proposal would not comply with London Plan Policies D6, H2 and H10, or with [name] H2, H5, H(b) and DH1. These policies, in summary, require that proposals for new housing developments to provide a high standard of accommodation which secures a satisfactory living environment for their residents.

Policies H2 and H10 of the London Plan and Policies H2 and H(b) of the RGLP are also cited in the reasons for refusal. These policies relate primarily to matters such as small sites, housing mix and conversions, which are of limited relevance to the main issue, and thus carry limited weight in my decision.

The site lies in [name] 1 and is not within a conservation area or the setting of a listed building. It is within walking distance of several bus routes, and is outside a controlled parking zone, which indicates that there is parking capacity in the area. The Council’s waste, transport or highways officers raise no objection. However, the absence of harm in these respects weighs neither for nor against the appeal proposal.

The appellant raises concern that the Council did not conduct a site visit. I have no reason to conclude that this materially affected its assessment. In any event, I have undertaken a site visit to inform my decision.

The Council advises that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The evidence indicates that the current supply is 2.38 years, which is a significant shortfall. In this case, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

The policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Therefore, the test at paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework would be passed.

However, the proposal would fail to protect family-sized dwellings in the Borough and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. It would therefore be contrary to the aforementioned policies of the RGLP and the London Plan, and the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

Whilst paragraph 61 of the Framework seeks to meet an area’s identified housing need, it also requires an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community to be provided. In addition, the key policy at Framework, paragraph 135 requires development to function well and provide a high standard of amenity for future users. There is synergy between the development plan and the Framework, and therefore I attach significant weight to the proposal’s conflict with development plan policies.

Set against this harm, the proposed development would make efficient use of an existing residential building and would contribute one additional dwelling to the area’s housing supply. It would also provide social and economic benefits during construction and following occupation through the contribution of council tax. Whilst these factors would be beneficial within the context of the Framework’s objectives, considering the small scale of the proposal, I attach only moderate weight to these benefits.

Overall, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.