Appeal 6004394

The appeal is dismissed.

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed development on the supply of housing in the area.

Flat 8 is a first floor one bedroom unit in a development of some 11 flats located in a predominantly residential area on the busy [site address] (A243). It provides a bedroom, living area, kitchen area and bathroom. It has a gross internal floor area (GIA) of some 32m2.

It is agreed between the parties that the flat is situated in a sustainable location, well served by public transport, and that the proposed use as short term holiday accommodation would not cause harm to the viability of the town centre, character or appearance of the area, living conditions of neighbours, highway safety or other material interests. The Council acknowledges that it would make a small and positive contribution towards the provision of visitor infrastructure, in accordance with Policy E10 of the London Plan (LP), 2021 and Policy CS11 of the Royal Borough of [site address] [name] (CS), 2012.

The matter of dispute therefore rests with the supply of housing in the area, the suitability or otherwise of Flat 8 to contribute towards that supply and the effect of the loss of the unit as a C3 dwellinghouse. CS Policy DM14 resists the loss of existing accommodation (of all types) and, in particular dwellings which are suitable for family accommodation.

The National Planning Policy Framework, 2024, sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. This is in response to an identified existing undersupply. In [site address] , the Council cannot Appeal Decision Ref 6004394 currently show a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Kingston Local Housing Needs Assessment, 2024, provides a more up to date assessment of housing need in the borough than that set out in the CS. Although its recommended housing mix, set out in Table 13.2, shows that the smallest need is for additional 1 bedroom market dwellings, this nevertheless demonstrates that there is a need. Logically, this suggests that there is an existing undersupply and therefore existing units make a valuable contribution towards housing supply in the area. In consequence, their loss should be robustly resisted, in accordance with Policy DM14, unless other material considerations outweigh this.

The appellant argues that because the flat has a GIA below the new build standard for a one person unit set out in the LP and in the “[name] – [name]”, 2015, which is 39m2, the accommodation is sub-standard. It is argued that it would not therefore provide satisfactory living accommodation and would thus be better suited for short term and holiday letting.

The Council considers that since the unit already exists this is not a compelling argument. In my view, whilst the standard is a useful starting point, the suitability of an existing unit may not rely solely on its size. There are likely to be many units, built before the space standards were adopted, which fall short but nevertheless provide satisfactory living accommodation. Moreover, if the appellant’s argument was accepted without qualification, it could be repeated many times, leading to a sustained and detrimental loss to local housing supply. The issue should therefore be assessed on a case by case basis. This is what I have done.

There is no doubt the flat is small, but it is well appointed with high ceilings and a large bay window to the rear, providing excellent natural light and outlook, overlooking the generous communal gardens, to the small but satisfactory living area. The kitchen area is well laid out and provides ample storage, including a floor to ceiling built in cupboard, partly occupied by the heating/hot water system. Likewise, the bathroom is not cramped. The bedroom, at the time of my site visit, was dominated by a large double bed, leaving little space for storage. However, as a one person unit the room appears to be large enough to accommodate both sleeping and storage and I have no evidence to the contrary. I cannot therefore agree that, owing to its size falling short of the new build standard, the flat would provide unsatisfactory accommodation as a dwelling.

The appellant further suggests that owing to its substandard living accommodation, the flat has proved hard to let or sell at a realistic price. However, there is no evidence of marketing, either for rent or sale, or any further details to support this argument. Moreover, the flat was occupied at the time of my site visit. I am not therefore convinced by the suggestion that, if the change of use is not allowed, the flat is likely to lie vacant.

Overall, the existing flat makes a small but positive contribution to the Council’s housing supply, helping to provide long term, secure accommodation to meet a demonstrable need for housing for local people or those moving into the area. I agree with the Council that, in the planning balance, this would carry greater weight than the provision of additional visitor accommodation which, whilst supported, is less compelling in its need. The loss of the flat as a C3 dwelling should therefore be resisted. Appeal Decision Ref 6004394

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed development would have a materially detrimental effect on the supply of housing in the area. In consequence, it would conflict with LP Policy H1 and [name] CS10 and DM14. Taken together and amongst other things these seek to increase housing supply in [site address] and the wider London area and, in particular, resist the loss of existing housing accommodation.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.