Appeal 6003591

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description given in the Council’s Decision Notice in the interests of brevity. As this has been used in the appeal form, I am satisfied that no prejudice would be caused by doing so.

The application form states that the development has not begun. However, at my site visit I saw that the outhouse building was furnished and laid out with a cooking area, living area and bedroom. However, the layout does not correspond to the plans before me. For clarity, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the proposed plans, rather than what has been constructed to date.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of [site address] (no.633), with particular regard to access to outside space; and • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for intended occupiers, with particular regard to access to daylight and sunlight and the adequacy of internal ceiling height.

The appeal site comprises a single-storey outhouse and a roughly rectangular courtyard measuring approximately 16m2, located between the outhouse’s side wall and the rear wall of no.633. The building and courtyard front onto [address], which leads from [address] into a predominantly residential area.

The courtyard is used as an outside space shared by the occupiers of 3 flats at no.633. The proposal would subdivide the existing courtyard area with a timber privacy fence, providing the proposed dwelling with a private amenity space measuring 5m2 in area. A private outside space of that size would be sufficient for a new 1-person dwelling, including for sitting out and more practical uses such as drying clothes. However, this would be at the expense of the existing, shared outdoor space.

The courtyard space which would be retained for occupants of no.633 would be small and awkward in shape. There is no indication that there is a minimum size standard for such shared outside spaces prescribed in the policies before me. Nonetheless, given the significant reduction in its size, the proposal would result in unacceptable pressure on this limited area to meet the recreational and functional needs of the number of occupiers at no.633 who are likely to rely upon it. This would clearly erode its overall enjoyment value for those occupiers.

Outdoor spaces such as [address] are within a short walking distance of the site, as I saw on my visit. However, the ease of access and degree of privacy that those public spaces would provide would not be equivalent to that provided by an on-site facility, and so would not justify the appeal development.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of no.633, with particular regard to access to outside space. This would conflict with relevant provisions of Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) (‘LP’), so far as it seeks to ensure successful sustainable housing developments, including provision of communal outside amenity spaces of a sufficient size for the requirements of the number of residents.

The proposal would make use of the existing outhouse building, with a new rooflight to provide sky exposure to the open-plan studio space. Windows in the front and side wall would provide for a dual aspect and I note that the appellant claims that the glazing ratio exceeds a recognised benchmark for achieving well-daylit living spaces. However, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that such a benchmark is applicable to an urban environment like this part of [site address] .

The addition of a rooflight in the orientation and the size proposed would admit more daylight than vertical wall windows. Moreover, the appellant contends that surrounding buildings and boundary treatments would not excessively restrict daylight. Although those factors may assist in providing light, they do not establish, by reference to an objective standard, that the proposal would provide adequate daylight and sunlight for the intended use as living space. Nor is there any technical evidence before me demonstrating that this would be the case. It follows that I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would be acceptable in this regard.

Policy D6 of the LP and Policy D.H3 of the [site address] Local Plan 2031: [name] and [name] (2020) (the ‘Local Plan’) both set out minimum standards for housing development, including the requirement for a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m. The proposal would provide an internal ceiling height of approximately 2.4m.

It is put to me that the building’s existing structure is ‘fixed’, as lowering of the floor would be technically unfeasible and increasing the height of the outhouse would harm the surrounding heritage context. However, there is no detailed evidence before me which substantiates those assertions. I therefore cannot be satisfied that these factors would justify the proposal, nor that the site’s development potential would be effectively sterilised unless an exception is made to this policy requirement.

Furthermore, the appellant considers that a flexible approach is advocated by the LP policy’s supporting text. Paragraph 3.6.1 of the LP does state that housing can be delivered in different physical forms depending on the context and site characteristics. Crucially, however, it goes on to say that the standards apply to all new self-contained dwellings. In so doing, it makes no distinction for proposals to convert existing buildings, including those within a heritage context. The appellant refers to findings in other appeal decisions, however no details of those have been provided. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the standards would be fully applicable to the proposal.

The LP supporting text explains that the standard for ceiling heights helps to address the urban heat island effect. Therefore, whilst a lower requirement may be acceptable elsewhere, a specific local justification exists for this standard in London. It also seeks to contribute to the quality of new housing, including through improved daylight penetration, cooling and sense of space.

The failure to provide the required ceiling height would compromise the sense of spaciousness for future occupiers, which would be especially important in a unit of the small size proposed. Although the shortfall in the proposal’s ceiling height would be limited to 0.1m, the evidence does not demonstrate that this shortfall would not contribute to an unacceptable risk of overheating. In such a small unit, even minor improvements to its design could well make a meaningful difference to the living conditions for intended occupiers.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for intended occupiers, with particular regard to access to daylight and sunlight and the adequacy of internal ceiling height. This would conflict with relevant provisions of Policy D6 of the LP and Policy D.H3 of the Local Plan, so far as they require housing developments to meet minimum standards in order to provide an appropriate living environment.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). Having regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

As set out in the [name] and [name], it comprises a predominantly residential area of rich history and significant architecture dating from the 19th century. It is typified by a coherent townscape of terraced houses. The proposal would reuse the existing outhouse, which I find to make a positive contribution to the streetscene. The existing parapet and walls would screen the proposed external alterations from view in the street scene. As such, the proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

In addition, the site adjoins the grade II listed building, [address]. I have a statutory duty under section 66(1) of the Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. The listed building comprises a terrace of cottages dating to the 19th century, finished in stock brick with a coped parapet. Each cottage is arranged over basement and two storeys, with 2no. sash windows and some variation to entrance detailing.

As it relates to this appeal, the significance of the listed building derives from the uniformity of scale, materials and detailing at the street elevation. The setting of the listed building is influenced by its proximity to neighbouring terraces, including the gaps retained above first-floor level between the listed terrace’s end walls and neighbouring buildings. Its street elevation is best appreciated in close-up views from the footway outside or opposite on [address], which form its immediate setting. The proposed rooflight and new timber fence would not be visible from those perspectives. Therefore, the setting of this listed building would be preserved.

The third reason for refusal given on the Council’s Decision Notice refers to cycle parking storage. Provision would be made for 1no. wall-mounted cycle space within a cupboard next to the main access. As this would be within the dwelling, the location would be acceptably secure even if the bicycle were not locked. Although manual handling would be required to load a bicycle into this space, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this would present a significant impediment to users of a standard, non-adapted bicycle. Had the appeal succeeded, I would have imposed a condition requiring the storage to be made available prior to first occupation. Subject to that condition, the proposal would comply with the relevant provisions of [name].TR1 and D.TR3 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek to promote cycling and sustainable modes of travel.

I have found no harm in respect of designated heritage assets and provision for cycle parking. Additionally, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions that no harm would result from the effect on neighbour occupiers’ privacy and access to light, flood risk or protected trees and the proposed dwelling would provide an acceptable internal floor area. However, the absence of harm in those respects does not amount to a benefit of the proposal, and these matters would be of neutral weight in the planning balance.

Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework support the use of airspace above existing buildings for new homes. However, as the proposal would not involve the use of airspace, this is not directly relevant to the appeal.

The appellant has also drawn attention to Framework Paragraph 11 and alleges that the Council failed to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I consider the proposal’s accordance with the up-to-date plan in the Planning Balance below. For clarity, a number of relevant development plan policies are clearly engaged in this appeal, and it has not been suggested that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are out-of-date.

The appellant considers the proposal addresses all reasons previously given by the Council in refusing another scheme at the site. It is also suggested that the proposal would address “previous enforcement concerns”. However, very limited details of the site’s planning history are before me. I have therefore considered the appeal based on its own individual circumstances and the evidence before me.

In favour of the proposal, it would make efficient use of a suitable small site within an existing settlement. In doing so, it would contribute a single new home to the local housing supply. The reuse of the existing outhouse would also avoid demolition waste compared to redevelopment. Moreover, intended occupiers would have access to excellent public transport connections and be located in close proximity to a range of services, including retail, health and education. However, in view of its small scale, the scheme’s collective economic, environmental and social benefits could reasonably be described as limited.

Weighing against the scheme, it would have a harmful effect on the access to outside space for neighbouring occupiers at no.633 and it would fail to provide adequate living conditions for intended occupiers of the proposal. Those harms would be lasting effects of the development which each carry significant weight.

Consequently, the considerations weighing in favour of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.