Appeal 6004828

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing sunroom and single-storey rear extension, construction of rear dormer with front rooflights, and conversion of single dwelling into two self-contained flats in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/02988/FUL, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was submitted by [name] against the Council of the Royal Borough of [name]. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, with particular regard to the layout, internal light, noise, odour and outlook to Flat 1; and the access to rear amenity space and internal floor to ceiling heights within Flat 2; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety for all road users, with particular regard to the proposed off-street car parking arrangement.

The long, narrow layout of the kitchen within Flat 1 would be unconventional. However, the submitted drawings indicate that there would be sufficient space for a sink and draining area, oven and fridge. There would also be ample kitchen worktop space, and it seems to me that, whilst narrow, there would be sufficient circulation space. Dining space would be provided in the adjoining well proportioned living and dining area. Overall, despite its limited width, I find that a functional kitchen would be provided and there is no particular evidence to indicate that it could not meet the requirements of future occupiers.

The submitted drawings indicate that the bin store outside Flat 1’s kitchen window would be 1.4 metres in height. Whilst this would rise above the window sill it is likely to cover a relatively limited proportion of the window. As a result, it would not significantly reduce natural light or outlook to the kitchen area. The domestic waste from two households, stored within bins in a purpose built store is very unlikely to result in a level of odour or noise which would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Flat 1.

Flat 1 would be dual aspect. The habitable rooms would all have good access to generously sized windows, whilst two of the bedrooms and the living/dining room would have open views onto the private rear garden. Consequently, the flat would receive good levels of natural light throughout the day.

The submitted evidence includes a section drawing with an annotation indicating a floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres across the parts of the room created by the rear dormer window extension. While limited areas of the roofspace accommodation would have a reduced floor to ceiling height, which is typical in rooms formed within pitched roofs due to their internal geometry, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that Flat 2 would fail to achieve a floor to ceiling height of 2.5 metres across at least 75% of the unit. Therefore, Flat 2 would meet the requirements of the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standards (2015) (NDSS) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP).

As a result, I am not persuaded that a person living here would find the home unduly cramped or feel that the living environment was oppressive. Nor would future occupiers of the flat suffer from a lack of natural ventilation or thermal comfort.

The private amenity space for Flat 2 is accessed via an alley to the side of the appeal building. Whilst indirect, it seems to me, this type of access is not uncommon for sub-divided buildings in London. The amenity space itself is generously sized and private. I am therefore not persuaded that future occupiers would be discouraged from using the amenity space.

The proposed dwellings would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy D6 of the LP or Policy DM10 of the [name] (2012) (CS) which require proposals to incorporate principles of good design, whilst providing adequately sized rooms with comfortable and functional layouts.

The Council states that a parking layout parallel to the road would conflict with its vehicle crossover policy, which requires off-street parking to be provided perpendicular to the road. I have not been provided with a copy of this guidance, nor have I been directed to any development plan policy that requires compliance with the vehicle crossover policy.

In any event, the appeal site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, with a dead end immediately beyond, meaning this section of [address] carries no through traffic. The site sits adjacent to a turning head. The appellant’s swept path analysis demonstrates that drivers can use the turning head to manoeuvre when accessing the parking space. Consequently, due to its location adjacent to the turning head, the indicative crossover position would enable the car parking space to be located broadly perpendicular to the crossover. This would allow for safe and convenient access.

The appellant indicates, and it is not disputed by the Council, that details relating to the precise layout, access arrangements and vehicle crossover can be appropriately secured by condition. There is no evidence before me to suggest that such a condition would not meet the necessary tests outlined within paragraph 57 of the Framework. For this reason, I have imposed a condition requiring further details of the proposed crossover prior to the occupation of the development.

The proposal would provide a satisfactory off-street car parking arrangement. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy T6 of the LP or Policy DM10 of the CS insofar as they require adherence with maximum car parking standards, whilst requiring that highway safety is not adversely affected.

It would also accord with paragraph 116 of the Framework which outlines that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Interested parties have raised concerns in relation to intensification of the site. I have found that the proposed layouts would provide a suitable standard of accommodation. One additional dwelling within a relatively dense residential area is unlikely to cause harmful noise and disturbance as a result of the additional comings and goings or recreational use of the properties by future occupiers and visitors.

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would result in the use of the appeal property as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). I am required to determine the appeal based on the submitted drawings and the description of development, which proposes the subdivision of the dwelling to provide two flats. A future change of use to a large HMO would likely require the submission of a new planning application. As the proposal includes a three bedroom flat there would not be a loss of family size accommodation.

During my site visit, I noted that properties on this stretch of [address] have undergone a number of alterations over the years, and that very large rear dormer extensions are particularly notable. As a result, the proposed extensions would not be uncharacteristic additions.

A number of other matters have been raised by interested parties and I have taken them all into account. This includes matters such as the impacts on refuse and recycling storage and drainage. However, whilst I take these representations seriously, I have not been presented with compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable effects in relation to any of these matters.

I have had regard to the planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency.

In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed an approved plans condition in the interests of certainty.

To access the area of flat roof, future occupiers of Flat 2 would need to climb over kitchen counters, the sink or a shower in the bathroom. It seems to me, unlikely that they would do so. For this reason, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence as to why a condition precluding the use of the flat roof would be reasonable or necessary as required by the Framework. Accordingly, I have not imposed the Council’s suggested condition to this effect.

Conditions related to external materials and refuse and recycling storage are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition related to cycle storage is necessary to promote sustainable transport. I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the [name] in the interests of fire safety.

Following consultation with the main parties I have imposed a planning condition requiring details of the means of vehicular access, in relation to the vehicular crossover to the parking space for Flat 1. This is in the interests of highway safety.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: E00 - [name] and [name]; P00 – [name] and Block Plan; P01 - [name] and [name]; P02 - [name] and [name]; P03 - [name] and [name]; P04 - Proposed Section AA; P05 - [name]; P06 - Details; P07 – Details; P08 - [address] Elevation.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans and specified on the planning application form.

The development shall not be occupied until the secure and covered cycle parking facilities shown on drawings P05; P06 and P07 have been installed. Thereafter the facilities shall be permanently retained and maintained.

The development shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling facilities shown on drawings P05; P06 and P07 have been installed. Thereafter the facilities shall be permanently retained and maintained.

The development shall not be occupied until details of the means of vehicular access, including vehicular crossover to the front of Flat 1 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The means of access shall be provided prior to occupation of the development and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained. END OF SCHEDULE