Appeal 6004487

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence indicates that the development is part-retrospective as extensions and alterations have been undertaken to the property which feature on the submitted plans. While this broadly aligns with what I observed on site, I have determined this appeal based on the submitted plans.

The appellant has submitted amended proposed floor plans with this appeal which includes annotations showing internal storage areas. The amendments proposed do 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 plans.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on the supply of larger family-sized housing in the Borough; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with regard to internal space and storage.

The plans indicate that the appeal relates to an existing 5-bedroom semi-detached dwelling, which is located in a predominantly residential area. The proposal seeks permission for the subdivision of the dwellinghouse into two 3-bedroomed properties.

The spatial strategy in the Newham Local Plan (2018) (NLP) supports the stabilisation of communities and protection of family housing. Policy S1 of the NLP states that mixed and balanced communities should be achieved where homes are not created at the expense of the provision and protection of family housing, which is defined as houses or flats that contain three or more bedrooms.

Policy H4 of the NLP states that the Council will specifically protect three and four or more bedroomed family housing. In adopting this approach, the Council recognises that the greatest housing need within the Borough is for family-sized dwellings. These policies align with paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires that planning policies reflect the housing needs of different groups in the community, including families with children.

Notwithstanding the above, Policy H4 of the NLP sets out that the subdivision or conversion of family dwellings may be appropriate subject to meeting various exception criteria. Proposals to subdivide or convert 3 or more bedroom homes may be appropriate if they are in a town or local centre, are above an existing occupied commercial unit, do not have access to private outdoor space, and have poorly defined entrances. However, the subdivision or conversion of large family dwelling houses (with four or more bedrooms) are only appropriate where all resulting new units are four or more bedroomed family dwelling units and are accompanied by at least 45 sqm of private amenity space with a minimum width of 4m.

The appeal scheme would result in the creation of two 3-bedroomed dwellings and the proposed private amenity spaces would be below the size requirements set by part 2.b. of Policy H4. I have not been supplied with any details of the location of the local centre or where the identified [name] or [name] are. However, even if the development were to meet this criterion, No [site address] has a clearly defined front entrance, access to external private amenity space to the rear, and is not located above an existing occupied commercial unit. It therefore also fails to meet the criteria of part 2.a. of Policy H4.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would result in the loss of a larger family-sized dwelling and thus would have a detrimental effect on the supply of larger housing within the Borough. This is contrary to Policy H4 of the NLP which specifically seeks to protect large (4 bedroom plus) family housing.

However, as the scheme would result in the subdivision of the property into two 3- bedroomed properties No [site address] would still technically class as family housing under the NLP and there would be a net addition of one dwellinghouse overall. I therefore find no conflict with Policies S6 and H1 of the NLP, or Policies GG4 and H10 of the London Plan, insofar as they support the creation of mixed and balanced communities, a range of unit sizes and identify the need for additional family housing more generally. The Council has also referred to Policy H8 of the London Plan. However, as this relates to the loss of existing housing through estate redevelopment it is not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The Council’s concerns with regard to internal space provision principally relate to the dwelling annotated as No 12A which is shown as a three-bedroom dwelling.

Policy H1 of the NLP states that all new homes should meet the internal space standards of the London Plan as a minimum. Policy D6 of The London Plan sets housing quality standards, stipulating that the minimum Gross Internal Area (GIA) for a 3-bedroomed, 4-person, 3-storey dwelling is [address] metres (sqm). It also requires a dwelling with two bedspaces to have at least one double (or twin) bedroom that is at least 2.75m wide and a minimum of 11.5sqm and sets a minimum bedroom size and width of 7.5sqm and 2.15m wide respectively for single bedrooms.

The proposed dwelling at No 12A would be narrow and while the plans do not contain detailed measurements or indicate the total GIA, it is clear that this would be constrained. The Council states the GIA of No 12A would be 72.71sqm, the internal width of the dwelling would be approximately 2.5m and the bedrooms would be between approximately 6.6-8.85sqm. The Council therefore contends that none of the bedrooms would meet the minimum floor area or width for a double (or twin) bedroom, and that the minimum single bedroom floor area would only be met by one bedroom. While these measurements and observations have not been disputed by the appellant, they contend that the GIA of No 12A falls between 84-102sqm. However, this is not substantiated by any detailed plans or definitive evidence, and the appellant has not sought to clarify the overall GIA or the bedroom sizes proposed.

Based on the evidence that is before me, the dwelling would fall significantly below the minimum GIA standards, double bedroom width and overall bedroom floor space requirements. These shortfalls would be substantial, and a failure to meet the minimum size requirements is a strong indicator that the dwelling would provide unsatisfactory living conditions. Moreover, the plans indicate that No 12A would be narrow, and its constrained layout would likely leave limited space to manoeuvre around once the rooms are furnished. This would result in a cramped and uncomfortable living environment which would significantly compromise the living conditions of future occupiers. This would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework, which seeks well-designed places providing a high standard of amenity for future users.

The amended plans indicate built-in storage areas for No 12A which the appellant states would exceed the 2.5sqm requirement. The Council has not sought to dispute the appellant’s estimated built-in storage figures which would meet the minimum standards required by Policy D6. However, the plans show that the inclusion of these built-in storage areas has reduced the GIA for No 12A, which would further limit the functional internal space for this dwelling and compound my concerns relating to substandard living conditions. No built-in storage space is shown for No [site address] ; however, as this dwelling comfortably exceeds the minimum GIA required for this unit size, I am satisfied that this could be accommodated without compromising the overall internal space and layout.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants of No 12A with particular regard to internal space and storage. This conflicts with Policies SP1, SP3 and H1 of the NLP and Policies GG4 and D6 of the London Plan, insofar as they aim to secure good quality homes that provide a high standard of residential accommodation, including in respect of the size and quality of internal space.

I have found that the appeal scheme would result in the loss of a larger family-sized dwelling, adversely affecting the supply of such housing in the Borough. It would also fail to provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants, contrary to the aforementioned policies of the NLP and London Plan. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Notwithstanding the policy conflict I have identified as a result of the loss of a larger family-sized dwelling, I note the scheme would result in the subdivision of the property into two 3-bedroomed properties which would still technically class as family housing under the NLP. On the face of it, the scheme would therefore result in the net addition of one family-sized dwelling. This would align with the aims of the development plan, insofar as it identifies a need for and seeks to significantly increase the supply of family housing across the Borough. However, given the substandard size of No 12A, it would not reasonably function as a family-sized home that provides an acceptable level of accommodation for that type of occupation.

The Council states that the demand for 4-bedroom homes is modest compared to other sizes such as 3-bedroom homes but nevertheless remains significant. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence relating to the breakdown of identified housing needs across the Borough, so I cannot be certain whether the appeal scheme would align with the greatest housing need or not. Even so, because the scheme would not result in the total loss of family-sized housing, I afford only moderate weight to the conflict with Policy H4 on this point.

The development would make effective use of an existing building to provide one net additional dwelling which would broaden the supply of housing in a location relatively close to services, facilities and public transport links. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice of homes in the borough and its supply of housing land. It would also provide some 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 should not be at the expense of providing high-quality residential accommodation which delivers a high standard of amenity for future users, which I have found would not be the case in this instance. Therefore, in this case, given the scale of the development, the benefits associated with the net addition of one dwelling 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.

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