Appeal 6004681

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and external amenity space, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with reference to privacy and potential noise and general disturbance.

The proposal is to convert an existing 2-storey building at the rear of 79-81 [site address] into 2 self-contained 1-bedroom apartments. Each new apartment would be single aspect, with the room containing the living, dining and kitchen areas served by a single north-facing window, which for brevity is referred to hereafter as the window. In each new apartment, the window would face into an external courtyard situated between the appeal building and the rear of No 79-81.

The appellant considers that the window in each case would face an open yard and receive adequate daylight. Having visited the site, I do not share that assessment. The outlook through each window would be mainly towards a substantial wall and windows at close range. The largely enclosed nature of the courtyard would also significantly limit the daylight reaching and the sky visible from either window. Consequently, the outlook from the room served by the window in each new apartment would be unacceptably poor. That would be particularly acute at ground floor level where the screening effect of the staircase would limit visibility of the sky.

Single-aspect dwellings are a common feature of tightly knit urban areas and are not objectionable in principle. In this case, it is the combination of the northerly aspect, the close facing relationship with a substantial wall, the limited sky visibility and the screening effect of the staircase at ground floor that would result in living spaces that would be gloomy and poorly lit. That conclusion is based on the physical relationship shown on the plans and as observed during my site visit.

I note that each new unit would exceed the minimum size thresholds set out in the [name] (NDSS). However, the NDSS sets a minimum quantum of floor space for dwellings. Floor area alone cannot adequately compensate for rooms that would receive little natural light and offer a poor quality of outlook for future occupiers.

Turning to external amenity space, I accept that expectations for private outdoor space may be moderated in dense urban areas and neighbourhood centre locations. In some cases, residents would have access to publicly accessible open space within the wider area. However, the courtyard here would be the sole external space available to future occupiers whilst simultaneously functioning as the access, circulation and servicing area for the site. In practice, it would operate primarily as a thoroughfare rather than an amenity space. The scope for any quiet, private outdoor use by future residents would be negligible. Access to parks some distance away would not adequately compensate for that arrangement.

The site lies within a mixed-use urban environment where a degree of overlooking and activity between neighbouring properties is to be expected. I have assessed the proposal in that context rather than against typical standards of privacy in suburban areas.

The proposed apartments would be served by windows facing towards existing residential accommodation above the retail premises at No [address] quarters. At first-floor level, the windows of the new apartment would be elevated in a way that would give future and existing occupiers direct views towards each other.

The appellant suggests that any mutual visibility would be reciprocal and typical of an urban environment. However, the relationship proposed here would involve direct views between rooms serving independent dwellings at close range. The issue is therefore not simply one of sightlines but the effect that such a relationship would have on residents' perception of privacy. At about 5 metres separation, the presence of occupied rooms facing neighbouring residential accommodation would give nearby residents a heightened and persistent sense of being overlooked.

The proposal would also intensify use of the courtyard. While two 1-bedroom apartments are unlikely to generate substantial levels of activity in absolute terms, the introduction of two separate households would inevitably increase the frequency of movements and routine domestic activity within a small, enclosed space directly adjacent to neighbouring homes. Such activity would be concentrated within a confined courtyard and experienced at close quarters by neighbouring occupiers, thereby having a greater effect on residential amenity than might otherwise be the case in a more open environment.

The appellant submits that conversion works carried out under Building Regulations would significantly improve the acoustic performance of the building, and that noise currently experienced by a neighbouring objector reflects the unfinished state of the structure rather than the completed scheme. I accept that the thermal and acoustic fabric of the building would perform better once converted, and I acknowledge the distinction the appellant draws between noise passing through walls and noise generated in the external courtyard. However, my concerns relate principally to activity occurring within the courtyard and external areas rather than sound passing through the building fabric. Building Regulations govern the construction of the building itself and cannot control the frequency or timing of courtyard activity. Improved building insulation would therefore not address the harm identified. Nor do I consider that a formal acoustic assessment is necessary, since my concerns arise principally from activity within the courtyard rather than noise transmission through the building fabric.

On the main issues, I conclude that the proposal would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers and would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan and Policy DE1 of the Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity.

The appellant places some reliance on the planning permission for conversion of the appeal building to provide incidental living accommodation ancillary to the existing dwelling, arguing that since that approval could be implemented the additional impact of the proposed development over and above the baseline is limited. This fallback position is a relevant consideration. However, accommodation used in this way by a single household would significantly differ from 2 self-contained dwellings with independent occupiers. Incidental accommodation, by its nature, operates in tandem with the main household: its occupants share routines, visitors and domestic patterns with those of the principal dwelling. Two independent households, by contrast, can have entirely separate and uncorrelated patterns of activity. The result would be a greater frequency and intensity of use of the courtyard than would arise from the fallback position, making the effect on neighbouring amenity appreciably greater than the permission would permit. I therefore give the fallback position only limited weight.

I have also considered the planning permissions cited by the appellant at Nos 63, 65 and 65A [site address] . These decisions confirm that residential accommodation and mixed-use development are well-established features of the local area, and that the Council has not historically required suburban standards of space and separation along [site address] . However, based on the information before me, none of those examples is directly comparable to the circumstances of this appeal. None of those cases involve the particular combination of a confined courtyard, north-facing habitable room windows facing neighbours at close range, and a shared external space that simultaneously serves as access route, circulation area and amenity space. The examples therefore carry limited weight.

I have considered carefully whether conditions could be framed to overcome the concerns identified. Conditions cannot alter the geometry of the courtyard nor improve the outlook from the main rooms in the new apartments. Obscure or fixed glazing to the courtyard-facing windows, whilst it might reduce overlooking to some degree, would further diminish daylight to rooms that would already be poorly lit, making the living conditions of future occupiers worse rather than better. Acoustic screening within the courtyard would not address the outlook from the habitable rooms, nor would it meaningfully reduce the impact of everyday courtyard activity on neighbouring residents. Restricting the hours during which the courtyard could be used would be difficult to enforce in practice and would not address the persistent sense of being overlooked that the close-range window relationship would impose. The harms identified are inherent in the layout and cannot be resolved through conditions.

The proposal would make efficient use of an existing building, deliver 2 additional dwellings in an accessible and sustainable location. I have given these benefits moderate weight. I also accept that the Council's ability to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply does not of itself diminish the weight to be given to the housing delivery benefits of this proposal.

The appellant draws attention to the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to its objectives of making effective use of land, supporting mixed and balanced communities. However, the Framework also requires that planning decisions secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and promote safe, healthy and attractive places to live. Development that would provide a substandard living environment for its future occupiers or cause significant harm to those living nearby is not a sustainable form of development. The Framework's objectives are mutually reinforcing, and the delivery of additional housing does not override the requirement to achieve an acceptable standard of amenity for those who would live in and alongside the proposed development.

Having weighed all these considerations, I am satisfied that the benefits do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.