Appeal 6004906

The appeal is dismissed.

The first main issue is whether the proposed flat would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway infrastructure.

The appeal site is located within an accessible central location within easy walking and cycling distance of local shops, facilities and public transport. As such it is an area where, in principle, new housing developments are acceptable. As pointed out by the appellant policy SP4 of the Dover Local Plan 2024 (DLP), supports small scale residential developments within boundaries. Paragraphs 7, 8,11, 124 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), similarly seek to boost the supply of homes in sustainable locations, make efficient use of existing buildings, and optimise the potential of sites.

[name] is characterised by a mixture of modern purpose-built flats and older terraced houses, some of which have been converted to flats. The appeal property is located within a terrace of narrow three storey Victorian houses with basements that are accessed via external steps. Some of these basements appear to be used for habitable accommodation and this includes a basement [address] (No.11) which was granted planning permission in 2018.

With the proposal there would be no external changes to the building and gardens. As a one bedroom, one person flat its occupation would be unlikely to generate a noticeable level of noise and activity, or place undue pressure on the demand for on-street parking. As stated by the council the appeal site is located in an area where a restricted on-street parking policy applies. Accordingly, the proposal would respect and be readily assimilated into the local environment.

Whilst this weighs in favour of the proposal it is also necessary to take into account the quality of the living conditions that would be provided within the proposed flat. Paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), states that developments should promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. Paragraph 126 of the National Design Guide 2021 (NDG) relates to the quality of life for occupants of buildings. This includes the quality of internal spaces, taking account of room sizes, floor to ceiling heights, internal and external storage, sunlight, daylight and ventilation.

Paragraph 018 [name]: 56-[phone] of the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraph 192 of the National Model Design Code – Part two (NMDC), advise that the [name] 2015 (NDSS) are optional for local planning authorities to adopt. This is subject to local plan viability testing and approval by the Planning Inspectorate.

The council has adopted the [name] through the development plan process. Policy PM2 of the Dover Local Plan 2024 (DLP) requires developments to meet the [name], which are set out in the supporting text to Policy PM2. The policy seeks to ensure that new residential development is of the highest standard both internally and externally, to provide a healthy living environment for their occupiers. The supporting text to this policy advises that all proposals must comply with all of the criteria set out in [name] PM2. This includes the stated minimum internal space within a new one person dwelling with a shower room, which is 37m2.

Currently the basement is empty and appears unused. With the proposal the internal layout would be slightly modified, comprising two habitable rooms with an en-suite between them. The front room would comprise a kitchen/dining/living area and the rear room would comprise a bedroom. The Council has stated that the total floor area of the flat would be 31.2m2, which would be 5.8m2 (approximately 16%) below the [name] of 37m2 for a single person flat.

There would be no outlook from the proposed living area because the existing door and window are obscure glazed. Whilst not indicated on the drawings the existing glazing could be replaced with clear glazing, and this is something that could be secured by condition. However, the resultant outlook would be of a curved flight of steps surrounded by high walls. Beyond the steps is a small hardstanding which is used for the storage of refuse and recycling bins. From the kitchen/living area door and window the bins would be visible above the flight of steps.

The outlook from the bedroom door and window would be up a steep flight of steps with high walls on either side. The small yard area at the top of the steps would be visible, although at the time of the appeal site visit a temporary barrier was placed across the top of the steps. The yard area appears to be used as private amenity space by the existing family that occupies the property.

For these reasons the proposed accommodation would be cramped due to the modest size of the kitchen/ding/living area in particular. Further, its cramped environment would be exacerbated by the restricted outlook and poor levels of natural daylight and sunlight. These are not matters that could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition.

I have taken into consideration the similarities between the appeal proposal and the approved basement flat at No.11. However, with that scheme the kitchen/living/dining area is slightly larger and is served by a larger front window. The front access arrangements are less enclosed and provide a more open outlook from the flat. It is also important to note that the decision relating to No.11 was made before the publication of the current Framework, NMDC, NDG, NDSS, NDG and prior to the adoption of the DLP. Planning law requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations dictate otherwise.

Accordingly, not only are the two schemes different, the policies and guidance upon which to assess the merits of the appeal proposal are different. No other basement conversions that are both directly comparable to the appeal proposal and which were determined following the adoption of the DLP have been brought to my attention.

Overall, the poor living environment that would be provided within the proposed flat would materially outweigh the benefits of providing a single person flat in this accessible location.

For these reasons, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would fail to provide a satisfactory standard of living conditions for its occupiers. Accordingly, it conflicts with DLP Policy PM2 and paragraph 135 f) of the Framework.

It is noted that the Appellant has not questioned the need for a contribution to help deliver highway improvements to the [name] and the Duke of York roundabout. This need is clearly set out in DLP Policy SP12. It is to deliver strategic transport improvements to mitigate and address the impact of development or remove impediment to future growth. The policy states that proportionate developer contributions will be sought from new development to support these schemes, which will be secured through S106 and/or S278 agreements.

The supporting text to DLP Policy SP12 explains that the issue of transport infrastructure is a key theme that runs through each chapter and is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The Whitfield Roundabout and Duke of [name] require upgrading to enable growth to come forward in the District and are critical to the delivery of the Local Plan objectives.

The appellant has stated that they are willing to enter into a Planning Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to help deliver the necessary strategic highway improvements to the [name] and the Duke of Yok roundabout. However, the appellant has not submitted a completed Planning Obligation within the time limits set out in The Procedural Guide–Planning Appeals–England, for appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026.

I have considered the possibility of dealing with the matter by way of a Grampian condition. However, few details have been submitted relating to the wording and requirements of the any s278 agreement or the timing of the proposed highway improvements. As such a condition which ties the occupation of the proposed flat to the s278 agreement, or the occupation of the proposed flat to the completion of the highway works would fail the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the Framework. Accordingly, the absence of a planning obligation adds to my concerns regarding the proposed living conditions.

I conclude on the second main issue that in the absence of a s106 or s278 agreement, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway infrastructure.

[name] note the third party concerns relating to fire risks and ventilation, these are matters that could be dealt with under other legislation or by condition. Regarding flood risk, had I found in favour of the appellant in relation to the first main issue this is a matter upon which I would have sought further information/clarification from the main parties in this appeal.

Having regard to the conclusions on the main issues and all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.