Appeal 6004663

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of a single dwelling into two self-contained flats: a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor and a one-bedroom flat on the first floor at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 25/00801/FUL.

I observed that the building has already been converted into two units, although the ground floor unit was not occupied at the time of my visit. I have removed the reference to the development being retrospective from the description above, as it is not a description of development.

The main issues in this appeal are: - the effect of the development on the Council’s housing stock, and; - whether the ground floor flat provides an acceptable standard of accommodation for its occupants, with particular regard to its size.

Policy LLP15 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 (the LP), relates to housing provision in the Borough and states, among other things, that housing will be provided that reflects the identified housing need requirements of the area in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). It goes on to state that planning permission for residential development will be granted on sites not allocated for housing provided that it would not lead to a loss of other uses for which there is a recognised local need.

The SHMA 20181 identifies that most of the market need is for housing, with a particularly acute need for three bed homes. Flats of one and two bedrooms have a much lesser need. On this basis the loss of a three bed home at the appeal site, and its replacement with two smaller flats, goes directly against the grain of the SHMA. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment2 suggests that in the years prior to 2019, development activity concentrated on the provision of smaller properties, reflecting delivery of flatted accommodation at that time, and accentuating the need for houses.

For the reasons given, the development conflicts with LP Policy LLP15 which requires housing to reflect identified need, and Policy LLP1 since the proposal does not reflect the pattern of sustainable growth set out in the plan.

The Council accept that it does not have a policy requiring minimum floorspace standards or compliance with the nationally described space standards (NDSS). However, in using the NDSS as a guide, the ground floor unit would meet the standard for a 2bed/ 3person unit, but fall short of the 70sqm required should it be considered a 4 person unit.

The floor area of the second bedroom suggests it might just be considered large enough to accommodate two bedspaces. Despite its size, I observed that it does not have a window, nor is it proposed to have one. Instead, it is served by a door with narrow transom window above, which leads to the rear courtyard and which provides some light through its obscure glazed panels. In combination with the size and layout of that room, it is very unlikely that it would provide accommodation for two people. In turn, it is reasonable to treat the unit as a whole as a 3 person unit at most.

For this reason, and in conclusion on this main issue, the ground floor unit provides an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. It complies with Policy LLP1 of the LP, insofar as it relates to creation of healthy spaces.

The Council accept it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Therefore, the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) apply to the appeal. The application of policies in the Framework which protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development.

Having regard to point ii) of 11d), the adverse impact of granting permission here would be the retention of a mix of housing units which are at odds with the Council’s identified need. While noting the age of that evidence, the adverse effects are limited, given the scale of the development here and the number of units involved. In terms of benefits, the development provides one net additional unit on the site, which is of particular importance here, given the Council’s identified shortfall in land for homes, and it contributes to the national objective to boost the supply of homes. Both units are sustainably located, being close to the centre of Luton and with good access to sustainable means of travel. Considering 1 [name] & Luton Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) January 2018 2 [name] Assessment November 2019 all these matters, the adverse impacts of granting permission here would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and having regard to the key policies in the footnote to 11d)ii.

The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework. This amounts to a material consideration of sufficient weight to determine the appeal other than in accordance with the

The Council have provided a list of conditions which it suggests should be imposed if planning permission were granted. I have considered these in light of the relevant tests for planning conditions. Since the development has been carried out, I have not conditioned timescales or the approved drawings.

The site closely adjoins the railway line to the rear and there is potential for disturbance to occupants from passing trains. However, I observed the windows to the back of the property to be uPVC and appeared relatively recently installed. Both rear doors also appeared modern. It is not apparent, based on the evidence before me, that a condition requiring further noise insulation measures would meet the tests of necessity or reasonableness here.

I observed space for cycles and refuse storage to the front and back of the building, and there are varied approaches to this across the street. For these reasons in combination I do not find further details of these to be necessary. It is not apparent that the units would have permitted development rights and, given the absence of justification for their restriction together with the presumption against such an approach in the Framework, I have not removed permitted development rights.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.