Appeal 6005031

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal submission, the appellant has put forward revised drawings which indicate a revised location of the bin store and cycle store and makes minor alterations to the proposed rear dormer. I am mindful that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the Local Planning Authority’s reasons for refusal. However, having considered the Wheatcroft principles 1, I am satisfied that the alterations indicated are so minor that no party would be prejudiced by my taking these drawings into consideration in the determination of the appeal. I have, therefore, dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The application was refused for two reasons, character and appearance and living conditions. The reason relating to character and appearance was framed in relation to the side and rear extension only and therefore the main issues are: • the effect of the proposed rear and side extension on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future residents, with regard to the provision of private outdoor amenity space for Flat 2.

The appeal property is a 3-bedroom, 2-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is situated within a quiet cul-de-sac characterised by similar modest residential properties. [name] note that several dwellings in the locality have been extended 1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, p37] and altered, including the adjoining dwelling, these alterations do not diminish the underlying established character and appearance of the area.

The proposal includes the conversion of the appeal property into 3 self-contained, 2-bedroom flats. The existing single-storey side and rear extensions, which are of varying designs, would be replaced with a new single-storey side and rear extension and the existing detached outbuilding would be demolished.

The appearance of the proposed side and rear extension, by virtue of its single-storey scale and more coherent design, would integrate satisfactorily with the host property. It would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the area, including when viewed from the adjoining park to the rear.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed rear and side extension would not harm the character and appearance of the area. This would not therefore conflict with Policy D3 and D4 of The London Plan (March 2021) (the London Plan) and Policies 7B and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (December 2013) (the DPD). Together, and amongst other things, these require development to follow a designed approach, respond positively to local distinctiveness, reinforce character through appropriate scale, appearance and high-quality, well-detailed design, complementing the prevailing street pattern.

The proposed Flat 2 would comprise an open plan living, kitchen, dining room on the top floor with two-bedrooms, one with en-suite, and a bathroom on the lower floor. The internal floorspace of this flat would exceed the minimum standards, set out within the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) (NDSS) for 2-bed 3-person dwellings, by around 3.5sqm. No private amenity space is proposed for this flat.

Policy D6 of the London Plan sets out requirements for private outside space and states that for 1-2 person dwellings a minimum of 5sq.m. of private outdoor space should be provided, with an extra 1sq.m. for each additional occupant. This is also reflected within Table 7D.2 of the DPD. The absence of any such provision results in a clear non-compliance with these policies. Moreover, given the size and layout, the dwelling is likely to function as a family dwelling. Despite proximity to a nearby park, the lack of private outdoor space would restrict day-to-day domestic activities, such as drying clothes and informal recreation, to the detriment of future occupiers’ living conditions.

Consequently, the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers with regard to the provision of private outdoor amenity space for Flat 2. It would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan and Policy 7D of the DPD, which together seek to secure high-quality design and adequate housing.

My attention has been drawn to a number of permissions2 within the locality for the subdivision of buildings into flats without provision of outdoor amenity space. However, in the absence of full details, I am unable to conclude that these are directly comparable to the current proposal. In any event, whilst some share 2 APP/5270/D/24/3343434, 242156FUL, 231570FUL, 182687FUL, 244643FUL, 243640FUL, 243607/FUL. certain similarities, others differ in terms of the quality of accommodation and

I have had regard to the need for consistency in decision-making. Nevertheless, my conclusions are based on the particular circumstances of this appeal, and I have reached my own judgement on the scheme before me rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.

I have found that the scheme would result in unacceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of Flat 2. It would therefore not accord with the development plan. This is a matter that counts significantly against the scheme.

However, the Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites with a housing land supply of 3.9 years. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged. This requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would make a modest contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location with associated economic benefits. However, given the small number of additional units proposed, these benefits attract only moderate weight. On the other hand, the development would not secure a well-designed place and would not result in acceptable living conditions for future occupiers or make an effective use of land in this regard.

When assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, the serious adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply in this case.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.