Appeal 6005761

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of a semi-detached property into two apartments. Erection of a single storey side porch and rear extension at [site address] , Surbiton, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/02742/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development on the application form, decision notice and appeal form all differ. No explicit proof of the appellant’s agreement to a revised description has been provided, however the descriptions on the application form and appeal form include inaccurate information as well as detail and narrative that does not relate to the operative part of the development. Therefore, I have used the amended description from the decision notice which I consider is an accurate description of the development proposed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal in meeting housing needs, with particular regard to the supply of family homes in the area.

Policy DM 14 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Local Development Framework: [name] (April 2012) (the [name]) resists the loss of existing accommodation (of all types) and, in particular, dwellings which are suitable for family accommodation. Policy H10 of the London Plan (March 2021) (the London Plan) states that schemes should generally consist of a range of unit sizes, and that to determine the appropriate mix of unit sizes in relation to the number of bedrooms for a scheme, applicants and decision-makers should have regard to various criteria including robust local evidence of need and the need for additional family housing and the role of one and two bed units in freeing up existing family housing.

Furthermore, the Kingston Local Housing Needs Assessment (September 2024) (the KLHNA) identifies that 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom properties account for 70% of the market housing need for new development, while 2-bedroom properties account for 25% of need. It also concludes that the provision of suitable and attractive 2- and 3-bed market housing might help to support downsizing, which then provides the opportunity to release family homes for other households. The proposal would convert an existing 4-bedroom house into 2 2-bedroom flats and therefore result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for occupation by a large single household or, in other words, a family dwelling.

The existing 4-bedroom dwelling includes good sized bedrooms and living space as well as garden space to the front and side, meaning it would provide suitable accommodation for larger families. The proposed 2-bedroom dwellings would also each have access to private garden space, reasonably sized bedrooms and living spaces. While the proposed dwellings could not comfortably accommodate larger families, they would be suitable for smaller families, for example a couple with a single dependent. They could also support downsizing which means that larger family homes may be freed up elsewhere in the area.

It is suggested that the appeal site’s low public transport access level (PTAL) of 1b means that larger family dwellings are typically more appropriate than 2-bedroom dwellings in this location. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to support this assertion.

I also note the information from property search websites concerning the greater availability of 3 and 4-bedroom dwellings within the same postcode area as the appeal site, compared to the more limited availability of 2-bedroom properties. However, this is not a comprehensive picture of local housing need as it only accounts for a snapshot in time. Reference is also made to ONS statistics and trends in population growth and changes in family demographics, but I am not provided with any substantive information in relation to these issues and therefore they would not be determinative in my decision.

In conclusion, this specific proposal would provide good quality 2-bedroom units that reflect an identified housing need as set out in the KLHNA and could help to free up family housing elsewhere in the borough. Consequently, in this regard it would accord with Policy H10 of the London Plan. However, this, in my view, is marginally outweighed by the loss of a good quality 4-bedroom dwelling in conflict with Policy DM 14 of the [name]. Thus, overall, the proposal would not meet housing needs in the area, with particular regard to the supply of family homes.

Whilst some aspects of the proposal would be acceptable, I have found there would be harm relating to the supply of family homes and conflict with the development plan as a whole.

However, the Council have indicated that they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. Consequently, with regard to paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework), 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 Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I ascribe moderate weight to the provision of one additional home. There would also be economic benefits of construction and local expenditure. Thus, in my view, in this case the adverse impacts of the development which would result from the loss of a 4-bedroom dwelling would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal would therefore constitute sustainable development in the context of the Framework.

The Council has suggested conditions, and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, amending where necessary in the interests of consistency and precision (including merging some conditions). I have also removed tailpiece wording as this could potentially allow changes to be made to the development without proper scrutiny and therefore would not be reasonable.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. A materials condition is necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on character and appearance.

Conditions relating to waste and recycling facilities and cycle parking are necessary to limit impacts on character and appearance and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and to assist with measures to promote sustainable transport. The Council’s suggested conditions in relation to these matters sought the approval of details prior to development above ground level, but this trigger would not be necessary or reasonable, therefore I have amended it to prior to occupation. I have also amended the wording of the Council’s suggested waste and recycling condition in the interests of enforceability.

A condition requiring the development to be delivered in accordance with the fire statement is necessary to ensure compliance with development plan policy and that appropriate fire safety measures are delivered.

The proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan when taken as a whole. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: • Drawing number: 2507-101 - Proposed Site Location Plan & Block Plan, dated 2025-11-15 • Drawing number: 2507-102 - [name], dated 2025-11-15 • Drawing number: 2507-103 - Proposed Roof Plan & Section, dated 2025-11-15 • Drawing number: 2507-104 - [name], dated 2025-11-15 • toutlemonde design; [name], Site Address: [site address] , Surbiton, [postcode]

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the materials specified on the approved plans and on the submitted application form.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The cycle parking facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be maintained.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the waste and recycling facilities shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The waste and recycling facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be maintained. End of schedule