Appeal 6003978

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description from the decision notice as the appellant’s evidence indicates this was agreed during the planning application.

The Council refers to roof extensions, which it states do not benefit from planning permission. The appellant refers to the additions having been built to comply with The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and a lack of enforcement action taken by the Council. However, it is not for me under a Section 78 appeal against a refusal of planning permission, to determine whether this development is lawful. It would also be open to the Council to consider enforcement action under [name] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, independently to, and irrespective, of the outcome of this appeal. As such, I have determined the appeal based on the existing plans and elevations before me.

The appellant has submitted amended proposed floor plans with this appeal which reduces an internal wall separating the living room and bedroom within the proposed second floor flat. This amendment does not make a substantial difference or fundamental change to the development when compared to the plans upon which the Council made its decision. The Council has also had the opportunity to review and comment on these plans such that accepting them would not cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended plan.

The appeal is also accompanied by a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which seeks to secure various planning obligations to address the Council’s sixth reason for refusal. I shall return to this matter later.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with regard to internal space, outlook and external space; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme proposes the conversion of an existing 6-bed dwelling to three self-contained flats comprising a 3-bed unit at ground floor (Flat 1) and two 1-bed units at first and second floors (Flats 2 and 3 respectively).

The Council’s concerns in relation to internal space relate to the gross internal floor area (GIA) and floor-to-ceiling height of Flat 3, which is proposed to be a 1-bed 1-person (1b1p) studio.

Policy 56 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 (2024) (LPP1) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) set out minimum internal space standards for new dwellings. These require a 1b1p single storey dwelling to have a minimum GIA of [address] metres (sqm) or 37sqm where a shower room is provided instead of a bathroom.

The plans state that Flat 3 has a GIA of 41.24sqm. The Council contends the GIA is 37sqm and raises concerns that as the floor plans show a bathroom, there is a GIA shortfall of 2sqm. However, notwithstanding the room label, the plans clearly depict a shower room and there is no substantive evidence before me that the size of this room would be sufficient to function as a bathroom. Therefore, even taking the Council’s lower floor space figure, as a 1b1p unit with a shower room, Flat 3 would meet the minimum GIA stipulated by Policies 56 and D6 for a unit of this size.

Notwithstanding the [name] Standards1, Policy D6, which forms part of the adopted development plan, also states that the minimum floor to ceiling height must be 2.5m for at least 75% of the GIA of each dwelling. The appellant states that 74.95% of the GIA of Flat 3 would have a floor-to-ceiling height of 2.25m which is below the minimum required by Policy D6. The existing section plan also shows that the majority of what would be the bedroom would be below 2.25m within the roof slope. Irrespective of whether the first-floor entry lobby area should be counted in the GIA for this flat, this would still fall short of the minimum 2.5m required by Policy D6. This shortfall is not insignificant when considering floor-to-ceiling heights and would result in a cramped and oppressive living environment for future occupiers to the detriment of their living conditions.

I acknowledge that this is an existing floor-to-ceiling arrangement; however, this space at second floor currently serves as bedrooms within a larger dwellinghouse 1 Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015) where occupants have access to other spaces through the property with greater head heights. This would not be the case in the appeal scheme as future occupiers of this flat would not have access to more comfortable and spacious spaces. As such, the two are not directly comparable. Moreover, the fact that this flat would be dual aspect and views over nearby parks could be achieved to the rear does not overcome the shortfall in relation to internal space.

The Council’s concerns regarding outlook relate to Flats 1 and 3. As set out above, Flat 3 is proposed as a 1p1b unit. The bedroom would be mostly within the slope of the roof, with restricted head height and served by two rooflights. Due to their positioning, views from these rooflights would be largely restricted to the sky which would result in a poor level of outlook from this room and an oppressive living environment. I acknowledge that the living room and kitchen would be served by windows which look onto surrounding gardens and parks. However, this poor outlook from the bedroom, in combination with my findings on the substandard level of internal space, does little to alleviate my concerns that Flat 3 would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

Flat 1 on the ground floor would be a 3b4p unit. One of the double bedrooms proposed towards the rear of the house would be served by a full-height glazed door with a window above. Following the removal of the existing infill extension to the rear, this window would look out onto an approximately 9m long and relatively narrow passage which would be enclosed by built form on either side for at least the first 5m. This passage is proposed to be painted white and would allow for views down the garden. However, the relationship between the window and the built form either side, which extends up to three-storeys in relatively close proximity, would have a significant enclosing and tunnelling effect. Views from this room would be dominated by deep side elevations which would be imposing and overbearing, compounded by the expanse of brickwork and proximity of two to three-storey built form which would have a deadening and hemmed in effect on outlook.

I note this unit would have adequate internal space, is proposed to be dual-aspect and would have windows in the side elevation of the two-storey outrigger. However, as this rear glazed opening would be the only source of outlook for a habitable room, the close relationship to the enclosing built form would not be conducive to a high-quality living environment or provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of this room. Moreover, while I note the results of the Internal Daylight Assessment (IDA) conclude that daylight levels would meet relevant standards, matters of daylight and sunlight are different to outlook and an overall judgement is still required having regard to the standard of accommodation proposed and local and national policies. Thus, irrespective of whether the IDA conclusions are reliable or not, they do not alter my above findings. Nor does the fact that an opening currently exists in this location on the appeal building, as the appeal scheme proposes different internal and external arrangements which are not directly comparable.

Policy 56 of the LPP1 states that all external amenity space should be well designed, appropriately located and usable and the role and function of each external amenity space should be clear with well-defined boundaries. The appeal scheme proposes to subdivide the existing long rear garden to provide three separate garden spaces for each flat which would exceed the minimum space requirements set out in Policy 56.

The plans show the garden areas would be accessed by gates off a communal side passage and would include space to accommodate secure bike storage. While precise details of proposed boundary treatments have not been provided, how the land would be divided and accessed has been clearly defined on the plans, and it is not uncommon for such details to be controlled by condition. There is no evidence before me to substantiate the Council’s claims that the garden spaces would be unusable, inaccessible or insecure. Nor is it clear why a condition requiring the submission of precise boundary treatments would be ineffective at securing private and high-quality external amenity provision. For example, the Council has not suggested that close boarded fencing, which is a typical way of enclosing rear gardens, would be unsuitable in this location or that the areas would be incapable of meeting the day-to-day needs of future occupiers.

The Council raises concerns over how the spaces would operate and how conflict between users would be avoided. However, as each garden area would be separate from one another it is unclear how conflicts may arise, noting it is not uncommon in urban environments for flats to be provided with communal external amenity spaces. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I consider future occupiers would be provided with acceptable external amenity space.

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of external space, for the above reasons I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with regard to internal space and outlook. This conflicts with Policies 20, 53 and 56 of the LPP1 and Policy D6 of the London Plan insofar as they seek high-quality design and amenity standards. It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework where it expects a high standard of amenity to be achieved for future users. The Council has referred to Policy 58 of the LPP1; however, as this does not explicitly relate to living conditions it has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The appeal site is a two-storey semi-detached property that has a two-storey outrigger to the rear with roof additions above and single storey extensions to the sides. The site is within a predominately residential area characterised mainly by two-storey semi-detached and terraced properties of a similar style and appearance. In the vicinity of the appeal site there is general consistency between properties in the street scene. However, to the rear, many properties have been extended and altered, and rear gardens contain large outbuildings which results in a varied character and appearance.

The appeal scheme proposes the replacement of the existing single-storey lean-to with a brick-built extension of very similar proportions. The Council has confirmed that it raises no objection to the principle or scale of the side extension and the crux of its concerns relates to the provision of a door within the extension which would serve as the communal entrance to the three flats. The existing front door and door surround on the dwelling would be retained and fixed shut as a dummy door opening.

I note the Council’s concerns in relation to the legibility and hierarchy of the principal elevation. However, visually, the existing front door arrangement would be retained, and it is not uncommon to see secondary door openings within principal elevations, as can be seen in the existing lean-to at the appeal site. Thus, the principle of a second door opening in this location would not be unusual in this context or undermine the architectural rhythm of the terrace.

[name] accept that functionally the main entrance into the appeal building would change, visually, the hierarchy of the front door in the street scene would remain the same, particularly as the new door would be set back and would not have an ornate door surround. Consequently, the side extension would have a recessive appearance despite the door opening and would successfully integrate with the appeal building and street scene. Moreover, given the scale of the appeal scheme, the use of this door as the main entrance into the site would not amount to harm to the character or appearance of the area.

The single storey rear extension would be approximately 4m deep and constructed in materials to match the host dwelling. Cumulatively this addition would result in a relatively deep projection when considered with the existing two-storey outrigger. However, in isolation the single storey form and modest height would ensure the extension would not appear as a dominating or unbalancing addition to the dwelling, which in any event, would not be highly prominent within the street scene. The flat roof design would also particularly assist in reducing the bulk of the extension and limit any effect on the openness of the site.

I note the Council’s concerns in relation to the cumulative effect of the extension. However, I note there are other examples of deep projections in the surrounding area such that even when considered with the existing outrigger on the appeal building, the development would not be completely out of character with its surroundings.

The use of matching materials and overall proportions of the extension would ensure that it appears well related to the appeal building, such that any achievable views from surrounding properties would be of a development that integrates appropriately with the site context. I also note the general resistance to extensions that create a tunnel effect for neighbours in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (SPD). However, the guidance in the SPD relates more to the effect such extensions can have on living conditions, and this has been considered under the first main issue.

For the above reasons, I therefore find the appeal scheme would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy 53 of the LPP1 and Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan which together, and amongst other things, seek high quality design and developments that respond appropriately to its context.

The Officer Report raises concerns in relation to the levels of natural light to Flats 1 and 3 and the adequacy of ventilation of Flat 3, which do not feature in its reasons for refusal. However, given my conclusions above, it has not been necessary for me to consider these matters further as they would not alter the outcome of this appeal. I also appreciate that no harm has been identified in relation to other matters including highway safety and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; however, this weighs neither for, nor against the scheme. S106 Agreement

The Council’s sixth reason for refusal refers to the requirement for a legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards sustainable travel, a [name] and Monitoring strategy (SAMM) contribution to mitigate any adverse effects of the development on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation and monitoring and legal fees. The Council states these contributions are necessary to mitigate the effects of the development.

The appeal has been accompanied by a legal agreement which seeks to secure the obligations requested by the Council. The Council raised various issues with the legal agreement which the appellant sought to address by providing an amended agreement. [name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other respects it would have been necessary for me to consider the contents of the legal agreement and whether the requested contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to do so as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal scheme would make more effective and efficient use of an existing dwelling to optimise housing densities and deliver two net additional residential units in an area which is in relatively close proximity to services, facilities and public transport. As a small site, these units could also be delivered within a relatively short timeframe. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice and mix of homes in the Borough and its supply of housing land; as well as providing social and economic benefits during the conversion and after occupation.

Housing delivery is supported by the Framework and, therefore, this benefit weighs in favour of the proposal. However, this is not at the expense of providing high-quality residential accommodation which delivers a high standard of amenity for all future users. In this case, given the scale of the development, the benefits associated with the delivery of two net additional units would be modest, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework, and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.