Appeal 6005390

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission (LPA reference 20250875) and listed building consent (LPA reference 20250904) have been granted for the conversion of the appeal building from a single dwelling (Class C3) to 4 student dwellinghouses (sui generis), including associated internal and external works, as reflected in the submitted existing drawings.

The appellant advises that these approved works are underway and that the former use as a single dwellinghouse has therefore ceased. However, at the time of my visit, the building appeared to remain in use as a single dwellinghouse, with no evident commencement of the internal reconfiguration or the associated external alterations to windows and doors. Notwithstanding this, I have proceeded with the appeal on the basis of the proposed drawings, insofar as they relate to the change of use only.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would result in adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space.

The appeal property comprises a 2-storey building sited within the rear garden of [address] (No 10) which forms part of a terraced row. The proposed development seeks to change the use of the building to provide 4 units of self-contained residential accommodation. Each unit would have their own external front door and comprise an open plan lounge/kitchen on the ground floor and a single bedroom and shower room on the first floor. An area of enclosed shared outdoor amenity space is located alongside the dwellings.

The Council refers to the Department for Communities and Local Government Technical Housing Standards: [name] (2015) (the NDSS), which sets out minimum internal floorspace requirements to support adequate day-to-day living and storage. Although not part of the adopted development plan and therefore attracting limited weight, they nonetheless provide a useful benchmark in assessing the living conditions of future occupiers.

The appellant indicates that the dwellings are intended for single occupancy, noting that the bedrooms fall below the 11.5sqm. NDSS standard for double bedrooms and I see no strong reason to disagree. However, the parties disagree on the appropriate application of the NDSS, as no minimum standard is specified for a 1-bed, 1-person, 2-storey dwelling. The appellant applies the 37sqm standard for a single-storey equivalent. However, as a notable proportion of the floorspace figure is taken up by the staircase rather than directly usable living space, the Council considers that the 58sqm standard for a 1-bed, 2-person, 2-storey dwelling provides a more appropriate benchmark. The parties further dispute the overall area of usable space remaining if the area of the staircase is discounted. The Council consider this to equate to approximately 21sqm whereas the appellant considers this to be approximately 29.7sqm.

Notwithstanding the dispute between the parties, I find that the usable floor space would result in cramped living conditions for future occupiers, even for single occupancy and with some generous ceiling heights. This is particularly evident on the ground floor, where a single room is relied upon for all day-to-day living activities including cooking and dining. Its limited size would be insufficient to reasonably accommodate typical furniture, storage and circulation space, resulting in a substandard form of accommodation.

This contrasts with the previously approved scheme, which assessed the limited internal floor space on the basis of student accommodation. Students do not typically occupy such accommodation as their primary or sole residence, often returning home for extended periods of the year and having access to many other shared facilities elsewhere. However, future occupiers in this case would not benefit from such arrangements.

My attention has been drawn to the approval for the neighbouring No 10 (LPA reference 20231587), where the approved flats fell up to approximately 3.5sqm below the NDSS. However, that scheme is not directly comparable, as each dwelling was arranged over a single storey, such that it did not lose usable floor space to a staircase and also related to a listed building. In any event, I have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.

The appellant refers to appeal decisions elsewhere (APP/P1133/W/24/3346441 and 3346444) concerning the conversion of commercial premises to residential use, providing around 42sqm of floorspace for a 1-bed, 2-storey dwelling occupied by one or two people. A further appeal (APP/R3650/W/23/3328578) is also cited in relation to a 1-bed, 1-person, 2-storey dwelling. In those cases, the NDSS were treated as guidance, with Inspectors applying planning judgement based on the specific circumstances of each proposal. I have similarly reached my own conclusions on the basis of the evidence before me.

The proposal would provide no private outdoor amenity space for any of the residential units. However, a shared outdoor area would be available adjacent to the front entrances of the proposed units. This would be accessible to all future occupants along with the existing occupants of the adjacent No 10 (approved for use LPA reference 20231587 as 5 one-bedroom flats). From my site visit, I observed that the outdoor space is fragmented across multiple levels, with steps and landings, and accommodates access routes to entrances, bin and cycle storage as well as a driveway serving a rear vehicular access.

The Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (February 2008) (the SPD) requires, within this Central area location, a minimum of 1.5sqm of private amenity space per one-bedroom flat and 50sqm per dwelling for mews, town houses and terraces. However, it does not define these dwelling typologies.

The appellant contends that the Council has incorrectly assessed the proposal as “dwellings” rather than “flats”, thereby applying a higher amenity space requirement under the SPD. In support of this position, reference is made to appeal decision APP/5270/C/18/3193115; however, as the typology was not in dispute in that case, and it principally addressed the definition of a separate unit of occupation, it therefore carries limited weight.

In the interests of consistency, my attention has also been drawn to the approval at the adjoining property at No 10 (LPA reference 20231587), where the 50sqm requirement was not applied. However, that scheme differed materially to the appeal scheme, with the units undisputably considered to be ‘flats’, such that the lower threshold set out within the SPD was deemed to be more appropriate.

While both parties refer to legislative definitions of dwellings and flats, in this case each unit is separated vertically, has their own external front door, are set over 2 floors and with no internal shared accesses or circulation areas. I am therefore not convinced that they should be regarded as anything other than dwellings. Accordingly, I find that the higher amenity space standard in the SPD would apply.

The appellant refers to other appeal decisions (APP/P1133/W/24/3346441 and

to suggest that a lack of private outdoor amenity space is not uncommon in city centre locations. However, their differing location and policy context limit their relevance, and I therefore afford them limited weight. Moreover, while I acknowledge that the appeal site is located within easy walking distance to public green spaces and a river with a footpath alongside, the use of public and private open space differs and the evidence before me does not satisfy me that access to these spaces would be a suitable alternative to appropriate private amenity space in this case.

Given its varied levels, layout and intensity of use, the shared outdoor amenity space would be cramped, offering insufficient space for tables and seating, recreation and drying clothes. The absence of any private or adequate outdoor amenity space would compound the identified deficiencies in internal space, which would further diminish the living conditions of future occupiers.

In conclusion on the main issues, the proposal would result in significant adverse impacts such that it would fail to secure adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space. It would therefore conflict with Policy PS10 of the Saved City of Leicester Local Plan 1996- 2016 (January 2006) (LP) which promotes good design and a quality living environment for residents. I have also had due regard to Paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that new development should create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal site lies within the curtilage of No 10 which is a grade II listed building, a designated heritage asset. I have therefore had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The significance of the listed building derives from its historic and attractive architectural interest as a small mid-18th century red brick 3-storey building and adjoins another grade II listed building at [address]. The proposals do not include any external alterations to the building or external areas and the proposed change of use to an alternative form of residential accommodation of a similar level of occupancy would not harm the special architectural or historic interest of the heritage asset. There would therefore be no harm to its significance.

The appellant contends that the proposed change of use would also avoid conflict between the student and non-student occupiers of the appeal site and No 10, with reference to supporting evidence, including another approval by the Council which considered this issue to be relevant (LPA reference 20222016). However, the circumstances of that case are not directly comparable, and, in any event, this does not address nor surmount the harm I have identified above. It does not therefore lead me to an alternative conclusion.

I acknowledge that the Council have not raised concerns with regards to the impact on heritage assets, daylight and outlook for future occupiers, living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety and bin and cycle store provision. However, while I have no reason to conclude otherwise, these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

The location of the appeal property would enable future occupiers to access local amenities such as shops, services, public transport and jobs to which I ascribe positive weight.

The appellant refers to the emerging Leicester Local Plan, asserting that it introduces no materially different policies and identifies no new designations affecting the site. This does not therefore alter my overall conclusion.

My attention has been drawn to various paragraphs of the Framework and other policies within the development plan. However, the appellant has not referenced the relevance of these, and they have not therefore been determinative in my

The Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a housing land supply of 3.9 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore relevant. Paragraph 11d) i) is not relevant in this case.

The proposal would make a modest but worthwhile contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location and represent an efficient use of the building. In this sense the proposal would find favour with some aspects of the development plan. These matters also find favour with the Framework including with regards to its aims to significantly boost the supply of homes. However, given the limited number of units proposed, this somewhat limits the weight that I afford to this matter.

Set against this, the proposal would provide unacceptable living conditions with regard to internal floorspace and outdoor amenity space for future occupiers and there would be conflict with Policy PS10 of the LP. The development plan policies, where conflict with regard to living conditions is identified, align with the Framework which requires that planning decisions should ensure that developments, amongst other things, create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The insufficient internal floorspace and external amenity space proposed would have immediate day after day significant adverse impacts on future occupiers. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers would be such that the harm arising from the development would, in this particular instance, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

As such, considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan with which the proposal would conflict.

The appeal should therefore be dismissed.