Appeal 6004781

The appeal is dismissed.

Taking into account the reasons for refusal and the submitted documentation, the main issues are: • The proposed housing mix, with particular regard to the provision of family sized accommodation; • Whether future occupiers would have satisfactory living conditions, with particular regard to the size of the accommodation; internal storage provision, and private amenity space; and, • Whether a planning obligation in respect of car free development; cycle hire membership, and car club membership would be reasonable and necessary to make the proposed development acceptable.

The appeal site contains a mid-terraced, two storey property, which has had a rear roof extension, it is currently used as a House in [name] (HMO). Proposed are; 1 no. 2-bedroom 4-person flat on the ground floor; 2 no. 1-bedroom 2-person flats at first floor; and 1 no. 1-bedroom 1-person flat at second floor.

Policy H6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, adopted September 2021 (LLP) says that the conversions of a dwelling into flats that had an original floor area above [address] metres can be considered acceptable subject to satisfying certain criteria, including that it provides a family-sized home, at ground-floor level with direct access to a rear garden. The supporting text to Policy H6 says a dwelling suitable for occupation by families means those with three bedrooms or more. This is to ensure mixed and balanced communities with a choice of family-sized housing and to manage the cumulative effects of residential conversions on environmental quality and local amenity.

There is no dispute that the appeal property’s floor area exceeds [address] metres. The proposed 4-person 2-bedroom ground floor flat would provide direct access to the private amenity space at ground floor, but it would not be three bedroomed or more accommodation, so in terms of LLP Policy H6, it would not comprise family sized accommodation. Whether or not some families may need fewer than 3 bedroomed accommodation, others may not, and this argument does not change the policy requirement. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with LLP Policy H6 and there would be harmful effects by not providing a balanced mix of housing types for the community, which would include those for families requiring at least 3 no. bedroom accommodation.

It is noted that the policy says the requirement for family sized accommodation applies where practical. Whether a duplex flat across both ground and first floor would be practical or not, the appellant has not submitted any substantive evidence to show why providing family sized accommodation would not be practical at the appeal site, so I cannot be certain that it is not practical to provide it, based on the evidence before me.

Accordingly, I conclude that the lack of a family sized home, without adequate justification, would not provide an acceptable housing mix for this proposed conversion into flats, and there would be conflict with the requirements of LLP Policy H6, in terms of the requirements set out above. Living conditions (future occupiers)

Policy D6 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021 (LP) says housing development should be of a high-quality design, and they should meet the minimum sizes set out within its accompanying Table 3.1. These same minimum sizes in respect of the appeal proposal are also replicated in the [name] – [name] published 27 March 2015 (NDSS). The proposed 4- person 2-bedroom flat would meet the minimum [address] metres of internal space (providing 72.[address] metres) and the second floor 1 person 1-bedroom flat at some [address] metres would also meet the minimum size ([address] metres).

However, the 2 no. 2-person 1-bedroom flats would be below the [address] metres required by Table 3.1 and the NDSSS (measuring 38.[address] metres and [address] metres respectively). Whilst the appellant says these 1-bedroom first floor flats, which do not have separate bedrooms, are studio flats, they clearly show 2 no. bed spaces each, indicating to me that they can be occupied by 2 persons. Furthermore, the supporting text to LP Policy D6 says the standards apply to all new self-contained dwellings of any tenure. As such, even if they are referred to as studio flats, they are still required to have a minimum [address] metres in floor space.

The significantly undersized accommodation within these 2-no. first floor flats, even taking into account the open plan arrangement, would provide insufficient and limited internal space for future occupiers, including within the small, shared kitchen, living, and sleeping area, which would create harmful and cramped living conditions for future occupiers.

LP Policy D6 requires the minimum floor to ceiling height must be 2.5 metres for at least 75 per cent of the gross internal area of each dwelling, which the supporting text says is required to ensure new housing is of adequate quality, especially in terms of daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space. Whereas the NDSS say the minimum floor to ceiling height is 2.3m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area.

The roof pitches where some of the proposed second floor accommodation would be located, could affect the ceiling height for its future occupiers. There is no section drawing submitted to show the achievable ceiling heights. Even taking the lower ceiling height requirement (2.3 metres across 75% of the second floor flat), I cannot be certain that it would be met. Furthermore, without any information as to what the ceiling heights would be, it is not possible to assess how any reduced heights would affect the living conditions of future occupiers. As a result, there is insufficient information provided to demonstrate compliance with Policy D6 and the NDSS in this respect, and I cannot be certain that future occupiers of the second-floor flat would have satisfactory living conditions.

Table 3.1 that accompanies LP Policy D6 requires [address] of internal storage for a 1-person 1-bedroom flat; 1.[address] metres of internal storage for a 2-person 1-bedroom flat; and [address] metres of internal storage for a 4-person 2- bedroom flat. In this case the 1.[address] metres proposed for the 1-person 1- bedroom flat would meet the minimum size, but the proposed 1.1 and 1.[address] metres (for the 2-person 1-bedroom flats) and the 0.[address] metres (for the 4- person 2-bedroom flat) would be below the required sizes.

The proposed 2 no. 2-person flats would already be significantly below the minimum size for such units, which was found to be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers. The additional shortfall in internal storage space would add to this identified harm for future occupiers, with no mitigation available in terms of any external space, or additional internal space to off-set this shortfall.

Regarding the 4-person, 2-bedroom flat, which would exceed the minimum floor size by 2.[address] metres, along with it having some [address] metres of external private amenity space ([address] metres above the minimum), I am content that the shortfall in internal storage space would be off-set by other internal and external space. Accordingly, the proposed internal storage space would not be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers of this flat.

LP Policy D6 says where there are no higher local standards, a minimum of [address] metres of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra [address] metre should be provided for each additional occupant. LLP Policy H5 requires new flatted developments to each have [address] metres of external amenity space either as a balcony/terrace/ private garden or consolidated with communal amenity space. New studio flats are not exempt from this requirement.

The 4-person 2-bedroom ground floor flat would have private amenity space above the minimum size and comply with LLP Policy H5 and LP Policy D6. However, the proposed 2 no. 2-person flats and the 1-person 1-bedroom flat would have no private external amenity space.

It is noted that the supporting text to LLP Policy H5 says that in exceptional circumstances when it is demonstrated that site constraints make it impossible to provide private open space for all dwellings in flatted developments, the provision of additional internal living space equivalent to the amenity space requirement within a proportion of dwellings may be accepted. It has not been demonstrated with substantive evidence in this case, that there are constraints that make it impossible to provide such space. Furthermore, none of these 3 no. proposed flats would provide the additional internal space ([address] metres) to offset them having no external private amenity space. As a result, the lack of private amenity space for these 3 no. flats would create harmful and cramped living conditions for their future occupiers and there would be conflict with LLP Policy H5 and LP Policy D6.

I therefore conclude that notwithstanding the shortfall in internal storage space, there would be satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the ground floor flat. However, there would be harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the 2 no. first floor flats due to the lack of any private amenity space, insufficient internal storage space, and because of their small and restricted size; and there would be harm to the future occupiers of the second floor flat due to the lack of any private amenity space and insufficient information regarding its floor to ceiling height. As a result, I find the proposed development would conflict with LLP policies H5, H6 and LP Policy D6 insofar as they require the design of new housing accommodation to be high-quality, that is comfortable, is of a minimum size, with adequate internal storage space, ceiling height (2.5 metres minimum) and has private amenity space in accordance with the requirements set out above. There would also be conflict with the NDSS in terms of the minimum sizes for the first-floor flats and insufficient information to confirm the minimum ceiling height for the second-floor flat would be met. In addition, the proposed development would also conflict with the requirements of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in terms of it requiring a high standard of amenity for new and existing users.

There is no off-street car parking available at the appeal site. However, it is located within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level 5 (PTAL5), which is said to have very good access to public transport. It is also within a controlled parking zone (CPZ), which restricts on-street vehicle parking to those residents with permits at certain times.

LLP Policy T6 says development should be permit free in areas with a PTAL of 4-6 and/or where the development falls within an existing or planned CPZ, to avoid reliance on the public highway to meet the parking requirements of development. LLP Policy T6 also says car club membership should be available to all residents in new residential development in place of private parking. LLP Policy H6 also states that where a CPZ is in place, no additional car parking permits will be issued to any occupiers of additional housing units created through conversions.

Furthermore, the supporting text to LLP Policy T6 says Lambeth has parking stress and that section 106 agreements will be used to secure car-free developments. It also says provision of car club membership will be required for all residents from first occupation of development, which should also be secured through a planning obligation. Against this policy background the development should be secured through a planning obligation as car -free development along with car club provision for future occupiers.

However, LLP Policy T6 and its supporting text does not mention the need to provide cycle hire provision for future occupiers, mention is only made about improving infrastructure and encouraging sustainable travel, which is insufficient justification for requiring cycle hire provision. Whilst reference has been made by the Council to LLP Policy T3 regarding cycle club membership, this policy is not referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal, and no copy of that policy has been provided to justify any required cycle hire membership. It is also noted that 4 no. cycle spaces would be provided at the appeal site (Council say 5 no. spaces required), and even in the event the additional space could not be provided at the appeal site, the Council has said on-street provision would be considered, so this requested obligation in respect of cycle hire membership, would not be required to address any shortfall in cycle parking. There is insufficient justification to demonstrate that the proposed development should provide access to cycle hire for its future occupiers.

The appellant has said that a condition could be used in respect of these requirements, and that a planning obligation is not necessary. However, the wording of a suggested condition to demonstrate how it could secure such provision has not been provided. The planning practice guidance 1 (PPG) says conditions should not be used to require the submission of a planning obligation, as they are unlikely to pass the tests set out within paragraph 57 of the Framework. It does, however, say that a condition can be used in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a serious risk of delivery of development, and heads of terms have been agreed in advance between the parties, those exceptions would not apply in this case.

I therefore conclude that although there is insufficient justification to require cycle hire membership be provided for future occupiers, that the proposed development should be car-free development and its future occupiers should have access to car club membership, which should be secured by planning obligation. In the absence of a planning obligation in these respects, the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of LLP Policy T6, in terms of the requirements in respect of permit free development and car club membership as set out above.

It is acknowledged that the appeal site is in a well-connected area; it is not in a conservation area; that no harm to the character and appearance of the area has been identified; there would be minimal internal alterations to meet building regulations; that no harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers has been found; it is in a well-connected area; there would be cycle and bin storage 1 Paragraph: 010 [name]: 21a-[phone] provision; and the proposed development would make an effective and efficient use of an existing property, which would provide 4 no. flats, and contribute towards the supply of housing in Lambeth. However, even taking these aspects together, they would not outweigh the identified harm as set out above and the conflict with the development plan. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me that Lambeth does not have an adequate supply of housing, as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development, contained within paragraph 11 of the Framework is not engaged.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and it would not therefore be sustainable development, and there are no other considerations, including those raised by the appellant and the Framework, which outweigh that conflict. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.