Appeal 6003679

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates.

Whilst the application form identifies that works had already started, and at my site visit, I observed that works had been undertaken to convert the dwelling into 2 flats, there were material differences between the works undertaken and the plans before me, in particular the conversion of the loft to provide a second bedroom for one of the flats. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the plans before me, as that is the scheme for which permission is sought.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal space; and • the effect of the proposal on the existing housing stock, with particular regard to whether the proposal would be acceptable with regards the loss of a family dwelling.

The proposal would result in the creation of 2 one-bedroom flats. Each flat would be single storey. On the evidence before me, the bedrooms of both proposed flats would be larger than the minimum size requirements for a double or twin bedroom set out in the technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (the ‘NDSS’).

Although the appellant identifies that both flats would each be occupied by a single individual, and has identified this on the application form, there is no mechanism before me that would reasonably restrict the future occupants of the proposed flats in such a manner, nor could this be adequately secured by condition. Given that the proposed bedroom in each flat would be of sufficient size to provide a double or twin bed, in the absence of a mechanism to prevent it 2 individuals could nevertheless be accommodated in the proposed bedroom of each flat. I therefore consider that the proposal would result in the provision of two one-bedroom 2- person dwellings (‘1b2p’).

Both proposed dwellings would fall significantly short of the minimum gross internal floor area for a one storey 1b2p dwelling set out in the NDSS and required by Policy DM10 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (the ‘DPD’). This would be regardless of whether the bathroom in each dwelling was instead a shower room. As a result, future occupiers would likely have insufficient internal space to accommodate household items or undertake day-to-day activities such as cooking, dining or the private enjoyment of their home. Given this, the proposed development would result in an unacceptably cramped internal layout which would not meet the needs of future occupiers. This would not be an efficient use of land, and would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers.

[name] acknowledge that the proposal would provide private external space for each flat that would be greater than that sought by the Council, and would provide adequate natural light and outlook, this would not outweigh the harm identified.

Therefore, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal space. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (‘the BDP’) and Policies DM10 and DM12 of the DPD. Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to meet minimum space standards, make best use of existing buildings, and provide accommodation suitable for intended occupiers.

Prior to works being undertaken, on the evidence before me the existing house was a 3-bedroom dwelling. The proposal would result in the loss of one 3-bedroom dwelling and the creation of 2 one-bedroom dwellings.

Policy TP30 of the BDP identifies that proposals for new housing should provide a range of dwellings to meet local housing needs, with reference to published assessments. Information from the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (the ‘SHMA’) identifies the largest housing needs within the city are for 2, 3 and 4-bedroom dwellings. The SHMA also identifies a need for one-bedroom dwellings, with demand for such accommodation lower than larger dwelling sizes. A significant majority of recent completions have been for one and 2-bedroom dwellings.

[name] acknowledge that there is a significant demand for 3-bedroom and 4- bedroom dwellings, the information before me also identifies demand within the city for additional one-bedroom dwellings. [name] acknowledge that the majority of recent completions have been for one and 2-bedroom dwellings, I have not been directed to a recent assessment of the impact of these completions on overall housing need nor provided with substantive evidence as to the cumulative impact of proposals similar to the appeal before me.

The evidence before me therefore suggests continued demand within the city for one-bedroom accommodation. Whilst the proposal would reduce the number of 3- bedroom dwellings within the city, it would also contribute to meeting local housing need through the provision of 2 one-bedroom dwellings. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that 3-bedroom housing can make an important contribution in providing accommodation for those with dependent children, smaller sized accommodation also makes an important contribution including to those entering the housing market or those seeking to downsize. Given that, on the evidence before me, there is local demand for both 3-bed and one-bed accommodation, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the existing housing stock.

I have had regard to two appeals related to the loss of existing family accommodation. Whilst full details have not been provided, both relate to the loss of family size dwellings to Houses in [name] (‘HMOs’). Both appeals refer to policies in the development plan relating to the conversion of dwellinghouses to HMO use and neither appeal concluded substantively with regards local need for HMO accommodation. On the evidence before me both of these appeals therefore considered the loss of residential accommodation for which there is an identified need, to a use for which demand was not substantively evidenced. Whilst one of the appeals makes brief reference to the supply of 1-bed properties, the full evidence base for this is not before me, and the assessment period referenced is now of some age. As such, these appeals have not led me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Given the above, the proposal would not result in a harmful effect on existing housing stock, with particular regard as to the loss of a family dwelling. The proposal would comply with the relevant provisions of Policies TP30 and TP35 of the BDP, and Policy DM12 of the DPD. Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to deliver a range of dwellings to meet local needs, taking account of the SHMA and other documents, make best use of existing dwelling stock, and not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to the Council’s strategies and policies.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, would be acceptable with regards highways matters, would not harm the character and appearance of the area, may be located near to other facilities and services, and be acceptable in terms of ecological impact. However, these matters weigh neutrally in the overall balance. Whilst the appellant notes that conditions could be used to make minor design refinements, I do not consider a condition in this instance would be sufficient to mitigate the harm identified.

Whilst the proposal would result in the net provision of an additional dwelling, and thus make a contribution to housing supply within the city, would result in economic benefits during the construction and occupation phase, and would use previously developed land, given the scale of development this would be insufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.