Appeal 6005361

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted amended proposed floor plans which seek to correct the gross internal area (GIA) annotations and amend the internal layouts, including the access arrangements to both flats. The amendments proposed are relatively minor and do not make a substantial difference or fundamental change to the development when compared to the plans upon which the Council made its decision. The Council has also had the opportunity to review and comment on these plans such that accepting them would not cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended plans.

The Council alleges that the site is currently in use as a House in [name] (HMO) which is under active enforcement investigation. The appellant also refers to the HMO use in their appeal statement. It is unclear whether the HMO use benefits from planning permission. Nevertheless, the appellant has sought permission for the change of use of a single family house to two flats and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of [name] with regard to internal and external space.

Policy S.H1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (THLP) states, amongst other things, that the Borough’s housing needs will be met by ensuring developments do not undermine the supply of self-contained housing, in particular family homes, and by resisting development resulting in a net loss of residential floorspace or family units. Policy D.H2 of the THLP also states that development which involves the conversion of family homes will only be permitted when a 3-plus bed unit is retained in the new development. These policies align with paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires that planning policies reflect the housing needs of different groups in the community, including families with children.

The appeal relates to an existing 4-bedroomed dwelling which is located in a predominately residential area. The appeal building therefore constitutes family housing which is defined by the THLP as houses and flats which contain three or more bedrooms. The appeal scheme proposes the subdivision of the dwellinghouse into a one-bedroom flat at ground floor and a two-bedroom flat across the first and second floors. As neither flats would contain three bedrooms, the appeal scheme would therefore result in the loss of a family-sized home.

I note the scheme would provide two smaller self-contained residential units which would deliver a mix of unit sizes in accordance with part 2.b. of Policy S.H1. However, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that this would better align with the needs of the community. Nevertheless, this would not overcome the fact that the scheme would still result in the loss of a family-sized dwelling, which the THLP seeks specifically to protect against. While the appellant contends that other nearby properties have been subdivided, I have no detailed evidence before me to substantiate these claims or confirm whether such examples are lawful. Nor has my attention been drawn to any specific examples that the appellant considers to be comparable to the appeal scheme, which I have necessarily considered on its own merits.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would result in the loss of a family-sized dwelling and thus would have a detrimental effect on the supply of such housing within the Borough. This is contrary to [name].H1 and D.H2 of the THLP insofar as they seek to protect the supply of family-sized homes to meet the need for such housing in the Borough.

[name] is proposed to be a two-bedroomed, three-person (2B3P) flat, split across the first and second floors of the appeal building.

For internal space, Policy D.H3 of the THLP states that development is required to demonstrate that, as a minimum, it meets with the most up-to-date London Plan space and accessibility standards. Policy D6 of The London Plan (2021) sets housing quality standards, stipulating that the minimum GIA for a 2B3P 2-storey dwelling is [address] metres (sqm).

The amended plans state that the GIA of [name] would be approximately 73.75sqm which would meet the requirements of Policy D6. The appellant explains that the revised GIA figure is based on the methodology for calculating GIA set out in the notes to Table 3.1 of Policy D6. The Council has not sought to dispute the amended GIA figure and based on the evidence before me; I see no reason to come to a different conclusion. [name] note the concerns raised by interested parties relating to the potential level of occupancy of the Flat due to the number of bathrooms proposed, I must assess the appeal based on what has been applied for. As a 2B3P self-contained flat the GIA would meet the requirements of Policy D6. Future occupiers of [name] would therefore be provided with an appropriate level of internal space.

Turning to external space, both policies D.H3 and D6 state that a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for a 1-2 person dwelling with an extra 1sqm provided for each additional occupant. While a front courtyard area for bin storage is shown on the plans, the appellant accepts that there would be no private amenity space provided for [name].

The appellant suggests that private external amenity space could be provided for [name] by incorporating a raised terrace over the existing ground floor flat roof range of the building and through the addition of balconies. The appellant accepts that such features would require separate planning consent and suggests this could be controlled by imposing a pre-occupation planning condition. However, I cannot be certain that such an application would be acceptable and granted planning permission. As imposing such a condition could unreasonably impact on the deliverability of the development, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that it would meet the tests set out at paragraph 57 of the Framework and would be reasonable.

Accordingly, I must determine this appeal based on the scheme before me, which does not include any external amenity space for [name]. The development would therefore fail to meet the requirements set out in the abovementioned policies and the absence of any dedicated outdoor amenity space would significantly compromise the overall quality of [name].

Notwithstanding my findings in relation to internal space, for the above reasons I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants of [name] with particular regard to external space. This conflicts with Policy D.H3 of the THLP and Policy D6 of the London Plan insofar as they seek to ensure that developments provide a high standard of residential accommodation and sufficient private outdoor space. It also conflicts with Paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA is made up of two perpendicular blocks of late 19th century housing located between two areas of parkland; Mile End Park to the west which lies parallel to [address] and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park which borders the CA to the north and east.

The CA is an area of historical and architectural interest, characterised by its terraced houses, which are of particular merit, and the former London Board School buildings. The historic integrity, architectural quality and well-preserved townscape contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset. The appeal building is part of one of the terraced houses identified as being of particular merit within the CA and therefore makes a positive contribution to its special interest and significance.

No external alterations are proposed as part of this appeal. The Council has not raised any concerns in relation to the effect of the development on the character or appearance of the CA, the significance of which would therefore be preserved. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

The Council has not identified harm in relation to other matters either, including the effect of the development on highway safety, waste disposal or the character and appearance of the area. However, these factors weigh neither for, nor against the appeal scheme.

The appeals scheme would provide two flats which would result in a more intensive use of the property and effective use of land. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice of homes in the borough and its supply of housing land, in addition to delivering social and economic benefits during the conversion and after occupation. Housing delivery is supported by the Framework and, therefore, this benefit weighs in favour of the proposal.

However, the development would result in the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse, which the THLP seeks specifically to protect against. It would also fail to provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants, having particular regard to the provision of external space. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects both the delivery of homes that meet an area’s identified housing needs, including the needs of different groups in the community such as families with children and a high standard of amenity to be achieved for future users. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

Therefore, in this particular case, given the scale of the development, the benefits associated with the delivery of one net additional dwelling would be modest, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework, and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.