Appeal 6005574

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of proposed development from the planning application form although I note it is expressed differently on other documents.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect on the housing stock in the Council area.

Policy LP25 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023 – 2038 sets out how the existing housing stock within the Borough will be managed to protect the existing stock to ensure that both family and non-family sized accommodation is maintained. This policy resists the amalgamation of sub-divided properties to single dwellings. In exceptional circumstance, the net loss of self-contained residential dwellings will be acceptable where the proposal involves combining no more than two non-family sized dwellings in order to create a family-sized dwelling and the total floorspace of the new dwelling created will be less than or equal to 130sqm.

The appeal site comprises two self-contained flats. The ground floor flat has access to a rear garden. The upper floor flat is set over two levels and comprises larger family-sized accommodation. I saw at my visit that both of the self-contained flats are spacious and have sizable rooms.

The proposal is to combine these two self-contained flats to form one dwelling by amalgamating a non-family sized unit (two-bedroom) and a family sized unit (three-bedroom) into a four-bedroom dwelling. The new dwelling would be considerably larger than 130sqm and combine an existing family-sized dwelling with another dwelling resulting in the loss of an existing dwelling within another dwelling contrary to Policy LC25. This would be so despite the property being originally constructed as, and historically being, a single dwelling and there being a high number of single dwellings in the area.

I have been directed to Policy H8 of the London Plan that does not prohibit amalgamations but encourages Council’s to resist amalgamations only where there is evidence that it is leading to sustained loss of homes and not meeting the identified requirements of larger families. Amalgamations are not restricted unless prohibited by the local plan, which is the case here.

Since the planning application was determined the Council has issued a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) in relation to the appeal property. [name] allows for the internal reconfiguration of the flats to create a studio flat and a larger 4- bedroom flat. Irrespective of the resulting size of the units approved by the LDC, the appeal proposal would result in a loss of a residential unit. The LDC, despite allowing for the reconfiguration of the two flats, would not justify the setting aside of development plan polices that deal specifically with the loss of housing stock and would not represent a fallback position as the LDC would retain the property as two residential units. Furthermore, it would not reflect the housing needs requirement for two and three bedroom properties as identified by the Wandsworth Housing Need Assessment 2024.

I have been referred to Local Plan Policy LP27 that relates to new residential development, including conversions, which the appellant contends is relevant as the proposal would constitute a conversion. Although the proposal could be described as a conversion, it remains that the proposal would involve the amalgamation of two properties into one, to which Policy LP25 is applicable as it sets out the criteria against which such proposals are to be assessed. I acknowledge that there would be a benefit in creating a family sized home that would have direct access to a rear garden. However, this in itself would not justify a departure from the development plan.

I am aware that the property was purchased by the appellant at auction prior to the adoption of Policy LP25. Nonetheless, development proposals need to be determined in accordance with the planning policies that are in place at the time of the decision. Mortgage finances and freehold title are separate matters to that of planning. Whilst it is suggested that if the proposal were to be applied in reverse, a single dwelling to two flats, other policies would prevent this from taking place. However, that is not what is before me for consideration and, as such, offers little weight in favour of the proposal.

There would be little change to the appearance of the property. The only alteration to create a single dwelling would be the reinstatement of the original opening through from the stairwell into the hall, which I saw at my visit has been boarded up. Therefore, there would be no discernible visual impact upon the character or appearance of the adjacent [address] Conservation Area (the CA) or the setting of the adjacent Listed building. The is no clear indication that single ownership and single use of the building would best safeguard the building, such that would provide unique circumstances that would justify setting aside Policy LP25. Whilst the [name] and [name] notes that the CA is characterised mainly by single dwellings, the appeal site falls outside of the CA and is not subject to the special interests of the CA.

The conversion is not required in order to create a family sized dwelling at the property as the existing upper flat is already family size, which the Council indicates is defined in the Local Plan as being three or four bedrooms. The amalgamation of the two units would result in the permanent loss of an existing small sized self-contained flat. This would reduce the range and availability of housing stock in the area and, as such, would have a negative impact on the supply of housing in the Borough. The proposal would also result in a new dwelling larger than 130sqm.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would result in significant harm to the existing housing stock within the Council area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy LP25 of the Local Plan.

The site is directly adjacent [address] at [address], which is a Grade II Listed building understood to be built in the 1890’s according to the English Heritage listing. Given its age significance lies primarily in this historical and architectural interest.

The Council has not commented upon the setting of this listed building or identified any harm to its setting. Based upon the evidence that is before me, I see no substantive reason before me that would lead me to consider that the proposed development would not preserve the setting of this listed building.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.