Appeal 6006413

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that, had the Council issued a decision, it would have refused planning permission. In establishing the main issues, I have had regard to the submissions of both parties.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. However, it is evident from the submitted elevation drawing and supporting evidence that the erection of an additional floor at roof level is also proposed. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The Council raises no concern over the character and appearance of an additional floor at roof level or loss of commercial floorspace on the ground floor to facilitate refuse and bicycle storage. Based on my observations at the site visit and evidence provided, I have no reason to take a different view. The main issues in dispute are: • whether the proposal would be acceptable with regard to the loss of employment floorspace over the upper floors of the property, with particular regard to marketing evidence; and • whether the proposal provides adequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to space standards and fire safety; and • the effect of the development on the availability of on street car parking in the area and the provision of bicycle storage.

Numbers 110 to [address] comprise a substantial three-storey property located in a prominent position at the junction of [address] and [address], within the Shepherd’s Bush Town Centre.

The ground floor of the property is currently in commercial use as a tanning studio with office floorspace over the first and second floors, constituting a Class E use1 throughout the appeal property. The proposal seeks to change the use of the upper floors to a Class C3 residential use, comprising of four, one-bedroom flats. Whilst not in the description of development, the appellant’s design and access statement sets out that a further residential two-bedroom flat is proposed in the third-floor roof extension shown on the proposed elevation drawing.

The appellant has stated that the first and second floors of the property are currently vacant and have been available to rent for months. However, I have not been provided evidence of a sustained marketing exercise over a reasonable period, nor is there substantive information to demonstrate that the floorspace has been advertised at a realistic market rate.

Furthermore, the appeal site is located within the Shepherd’s Bush Town Centre, where there is a concentration of commercial and retail uses. I observed at my site visit that the surrounding area benefits from good pedestrian footfall and is well served by public transport. There are no clear restraints that would prevent the continuation of a commercial (Class E) use, given the site’s town centre location and the generous quantum of floorspace within the premises.

Policy E2 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) (HFLP) requires the retention of premises capable of providing continued accommodation for employment or local services. It further states that planning permission will only be granted for a change of use where it can be evidenced that the property is no longer required for employment purposes. Evidence would include unsuccessful marketing over a period of 12 months, in addition to other considerations including the suitability of the premises for continued employment use with or without adaptation.

In the absence of substantive evidence to justify the change of use, and having regard to the lack of marketing evidence, I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in the loss of valuable employment floorspace within the upper floors of the property. This would be detrimental to the Council’s economic growth objectives. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy E2 of the HFLP for the reasons set out in the above reasoning.

Proposed floorplans have been provided of the first and second floors, and there is no dispute regarding the quantum of floorspace within the four, one-bedroom flats proposed over these floors. This would meet the [name] – 1 The Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). [name] (2015) (NDSS), in addition to the standards set out in the development plan.

However, the submitted plans provide limited information to fully assess the proposal in relation to the third floor proposed at roof level, and its compliance with internal space standards for residential development. From the Council’s written statement, I note that a third-floor proposed plan, along with section drawings, was requested prior to the appellant lodging the appeal. Whilst the design and access statement makes reference to a previously approved roof extension, where the time limit for implementation has expired2, it is evident from the document that the layout for this floor is intended to change with the current scheme. In the absence of a scaled floorplan showing the proposed arrangement, it is not possible to determine whether the layout and room sizes accord with the required internal space standards, and therefore whether adequate living conditions would be provided for future residential occupiers.

Furthermore, section drawings have not been submitted with the application or appeal. In the absence of these details, it is not possible to assess whether the floor-to-ceiling heights would comply with the requirements of the NDSS and the development plan. Given the mansard roof form proposed at third-floor level, where the sloping roof profile may limit the extent of usable internal floorspace, such information is essential to ensure that adequate internal heights can be achieved and, consequently, whether acceptable living conditions would be provided for future occupiers.

Additionally, a fire safety statement has not been submitted with the application or the appeal. Policy D12 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) requires this information in the interests of future occupier’s fire safety and to ensure that proposals are designed to incorporate features which reduce risk to life and the rise of serious injury in the event of a fire, alongside other measures including providing suitable and convenient means of escape. I find that had I been minded to allow the appeal that this matter could be satisfied through the use of an appropriate condition which would be in accordance with Policy D12 of the LP.

The Council has referenced the guidance in Supplementary Planning Document, Planning Guidance, (2018) (SPD), key principles HS1, HS2 and HS3. Although the SPD does not have the status of policy, this document is an important material consideration and reinforces my findings. Whilst key principle HS1 relates to the provision of outdoor amenity space which is not an area of dispute in the appeal, the proposal would conflict with guidance in key principles HS2 and HS3 which together set out internal space standards and the required provision in residential development.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would have the potential to harm the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to space standards. Given the absence of a proposed third floor plan or section drawings, it has not been demonstrated that the residential living conditions of future occupants would be satisfactory. This is contrary to the provisions of Policy D6 of the LP which sets out housing quality and standards for residential development, including a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75 per cent of the Gross Internal Area of each dwelling. 2 2018/03492/FUL.

I further find conflict with Policy HO11 of the HFLP which requires development that achieves a high standard of design for future occupiers, including meeting [name] standards. I find that the proposal is also contrary to Policy DC1 of the HFLP in so far as it expects all development proposals to create a high quality urban environment that is accessible.

Policy T4 of the HFLP sets out the Council’s approach to vehicle parking standards and management. It requires car parking free measures on all new development unless evidence is provided to show that there is a significant lack of public transport available. Given the site’s PTAL 6b rating, indicating excellent public transport accessibility, it is reasonable for car parking free measures to be applied in this instance.

It is further reasonable to expect that the proposed development would give rise to additional parking demand from the four one-bedroom flats proposed at first and second floor level, in addition to the proposed residential use of the third floor, the details of which cannot be confirmed in the absence of a submitted floorplan. Residential occupiers living at [address] and there is little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that future occupants would not own private vehicles. Furthermore, the appeal site does not accommodate off street vehicle parking.

The evidence indicates that surrounding roads experience parking pressures, with [name] (CPZs) and a parking permit system in operation. The appellant has not provided convincing evidence that explains the likely car parking demand arising from occupants of the proposal, nor the local capacity of the surrounding highway network to accommodate it. Reference is made to paid parking spaces on [address] and [address], with no provision on [address]; however, this does not amount to a robust assessment of parking conditions.

No mechanism is before me in the form of a unilateral undertaking3 that would prevent future occupants of the residential development from obtaining parking permits within the CPZ. Hence, on the available evidence, the proposal would be likely to increase demand and competition for on street parking which would be incompatible with the overall parking management approach.

Furthermore, it would potentially increase highway safety risks of anti-social parking, greater circulation of vehicles with drivers searching for road spaces, as well as increase tension between residents and commercial occupiers. I also note that [address] forms part of the [address] Network, where development should not compromise its safe and efficient operation. This would undermine the Council’s overall parking management objectives which seek to limit car parking.

With regard to bicycle parking, seven bicycle spaces are proposed which the Council considers would meet the required standards, notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding the third-floor accommodation. Whilst there are some concerns relating to layout and accessibility, the overall provision and available space at ground-floor level suggest that these matters could be addressed through the use of an appropriately worded planning condition, had I been minded to allow 3 Pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. the appeal. This is in accordance with the cycling parking standards set out in Policy T5 of the LP and Policy T3 of the HFLP.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that in the absence of a mechanism to prevent future occupants of the residential development from obtaining parking permits within the CPZ, the development would have an adverse effect in relation to the availability of on street car parking provision in the area and would cause harm to highway safety. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy T4 of the HFLP which requires car permit free measures on all new developments.

[name] note that a Section 215 Notice4 has been served at the property, the condition of the existing building is a matter between the appellant and the Council. Moreover, this consideration does not outweigh the harm that I have identified arising from the proposed development. The ground floor is currently in active use, and I have not been provided with sufficient information to justify the proposed change of use of the upper floors. I therefore find that ongoing site maintenance is a separate matter to this appeal and does not alter my findings.

The appellant has commented that there is a need for additional residential development, and that the proposal would help to fulfil this need in a sustainable location with good public transport links. Whilst the proposal would deliver a residential unit and make a modest contribution to local housing provision, this benefit does not outweigh the harm I have identified in my reasoning above and therefore does not lead me to a different overall conclusion.

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s reference to communication with the Council, including the failure to agree an extension of time or determine the application within the statutory timeframe, these matters do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues of the appeal.

The appellant has referenced examples of nearby properties5 in relation to character and appearance, alongside privacy considerations. However, these matters are not in dispute in this appeal and therefore do not alter my overall

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