Planning appeal dismissed - a great relief!
I don't have a link for the document, so I have copied the dismissal of the appeal in full. This is in South Acton, just off Acton Lane, very close to the Chiswick border.I thought this document would be of interest to anyone else fighting over-development in their area. The applicant want to convert this single-dwelling "uncharacteristically shallow" double-fronted house into 4 flats. Many neighbours on the two roads affected by the application objected to both the original application and the appeal, due to the many reasons explained in the document below (mainly over-development of the site creating cramped living conditions, poor design, very little outdoor space and parking pressures). In the Inspector's own words "the current proposal would result in an unsatisfactory cramped and oppressive environment for its occupants".We were very relived today to be informed today that, after a site visit only 13 days ago, HM Inspectorate in Bristol dismissed the appeal, and therefore agreed with Ealing Council's original refusal to grant the application. Appeal DecisionSite visit made on 8 May 2012by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPIan Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local GovernmentDecision date: 21 May 2012Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/A/12/216797145 Leythe Road, London, W3 8AW.The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a refusal to grant planning permission.The appeal is made by Mr M Gahir against the decision of the Council to the LondonBorough of Ealing.The application Ref P/2011/3028, dated 11 July 2011, was refused by notice dated 25October 2011.The development proposed is conversion of existing double fronted single dwellinghouse into 4 self contained flats.••••Preliminary matters1. The Appellant has suggested that the room sizes in the flats could be changed.However no revised plans have been submitted and any such changes wouldfirst need to be formally considered by the Council. Accordingly and for theavoidance of doubt I confirm that this decision is based upon the submittedscheme.Decision2. The appeal is dismissed.Main Issue3. The main issue is whether the proposed flats would provide satisfactory livingconditions for their occupants.Reasons4. Eight days after the Appeal application was submitted The London Plan 2011was adopted and its policies and advice were therefore applicable to theproposal. Policy 3.5 of The London Plan states that Local DevelopmentFrameworks should incorporate minimum space standards that generallyconform to table 3.3 of The London Plan. It goes on to state that the minimumspace standards set out in table 3.3 are set as the minimum for dwellings ofdifferent sizes and that boroughs should seek to ensure that new developmentreflects these standards. The objective of this policy is to improve the qualityof homes in London.www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorateAppeal Decision APP/A5270/A/12/21679715. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 14 (SPG14) includes lowerminimum space standards and remains a material consideration. However itwas published several years ago and is for guidance purposes only. ConverselyThe London Plan is up-to-date and forms part of the development plan for thearea. As stated in paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF), applications for planning permission must be determined in accordancewith the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.6. The Appellants Appeal statement states that flats one and two would besuitable for single persons, although the submitted design and accessstatement indicates that they could each accommodate between one and twopersons. Having regard to the size of the proposed bedrooms in flats one andtwo they could be occupied by two persons each. The first floor two bedroomflat would have two double bedrooms and could be occupied by up to fourpersons. The attic flat would have an open plan bed/living area and couldreadily be described as a single person unit.7. With the Appeal scheme all of the flats would fall below the minimum floor-space standards set out The London Plan and only the loft flat would complywith the minimum floor-space standard set out in SPG14. Overall the floor-space would be in excess of 27m2 below the minimum standards set out in TheLondon Plan and 12m2 below those in SPG14.8. At the same time the hallway and bathrooms serving flats one and two, thelobby to flat three and the stairs and landings would be devoid of natural lightand ventilation. The kitchen area to flat three would be reliant on secondarylight and the living rooms and kitchen areas to flats one and two would have anorth westerly aspect and despite the proposed roof lights would receive littlesunlight. Also their outlook would be directly at the boundary with 31 NewtonAvenue. Whilst this boundary is currently open, to protect the living conditionsof the occupants of the proposed flats and the residents at 31 Newton Road atall fence or wall would need to be provided.9. The Council’s SPG13 – Garden Space advises that all residential developmentshould provide private garden space in addition to appropriate landscaping andchildren’s play space. A communal garden area of 75m2 should be providedin conversion schemes for up to five flats and such space should be screenedfrom public roads, footpaths and ground floor windows. Ground floor flatsshould have private gardens where there is at least 3 metres between thewindows and the boundary screening. Following the construction of a singlestorey rear extension the rear garden of the Appeal property has been reducedto a maximum depth of 2.5 metres and one of the rear windows would be only1.5 metres from the rear boundary. Not only would the outlook from the rearwindows be poor the garden area would be confined and would be over-shadowed at most times.10. The front garden would be fully utilised for access to the flats and theassociated refuse and recycling storage areas and neither of the upper floorflats would have any usable private garden area. This is despite the fact thatthe first floor flat would have the potential to be occupied by a family.11. SPG13 states that in town and neighbourhood centres the full standard forgarden space can be relaxed, provided well designed, sunny sitting out space isAppeal Decision APP/A5270/A/12/2167971provided. However, in this instance the site is not within a defined town orneighbourhood centre and the space provided is poorly designed, largely over-shadowed and would only serve two of the four flats.12. The Appellant has indicated that a contribution could be made towards theprovision and/or improvement of public open space within the area. Howeveras no details or legal agreement to secure such provision are provided noweight can be given to this factor.13. Although there are a number of public open spaces within the area, the closestbeing some 130 metres from the Appeal site, the site is located within both anarea of Existing District Park Deficiency and Local Park Moderate Deficiency. Atthe same time the availability of public open space in the area does not addressthe need for private garden space. The poor quality and inadequate provisionof private garden space would result in a poor living environment for theoccupiers of the proposed flats, which would not be adequately compensatedfor by the proximity of the local areas of public open space.14. The main entrance to the flats and the proposed refuse and recycling areas toserve all the flats would be located immediately outside the bedroom windowsto the ground floor flats. This could result in noise, odour and disturbance forthe occupants of those flats. As with the restricted private garden space thesefactors highlight and exacerbate the cramped nature of the scheme and theoppressive environment it would result in for the occupants of thedevelopment.15. For these reasons the scheme would fail to comply with policy 5.5 of theLondon Borough of Ealing Unitary Development Plan 2004 (UDP). This policystates that residential development should provide good living conditions forresidents, including an attractive outlook, adequate indoor living space,adequate sunlight and daylight and adequate play space for children.16. The need for one and two bedroom flats in the borough is fully appreciated andis a matter to which I attach considerable weight. However, it is also importantthat the standard of accommodation provided in any development issatisfactory if it is to meet the needs and expectations of its occupants. In thisinstance, the current proposal would result in an unsatisfactory cramped andoppressive environment for its occupants.17. The Appellant has referred to a number of flats schemes in the locality.However from the details submitted none appear to be directly comparable tothe Appeal scheme in relation to location, plot size, the size and orientation ofthe gardens and the nature and size of the flats. As such they do not set aprecedent for the Appeal proposal which has been assessed on its individualmerits.18. Finally, as a single dwelling occupied by a large family, or in multi-occupation,the use of the Appeal property would be less intensive than if it was occupiedfor four independent flats with nine bed-spaces.19. I conclude on the main issue that the proposed flats would provideunsatisfactory living conditions for their occupants. As such the scheme wouldconflict with policy 3.5 and table 3.3 of The London Plan, policy 5.5 and table5D of the UDP and the advice set out in SPG 13 and SPG14. It would alsoAppeal Decision APP/A5270/A/12/2167971conflict with paragraphs 56 and 58 of the NPPF which deal with the design andfunctioning of the built environment.Other matters20. The Appeal site is uncharacteristically shallow and despite its double frontage ismore intensively developed than the majority of residential properties in thelocality. Although some of the dwellings in the road have been converted toflats none appear to be used for four flats and they have larger private gardenareas than the Appeal property. Not only would the proposed scheme providecramped living conditions for its occupants, the intensity and density of the usewould be totally out of keeping with the surrounding area. The front gardenarea would be dominated by refuse and recycling facilities and the two reargardens would be extremely cramped both visually and in terms of use.21. Any activity within the flats would be unlikely to generate a significant amountof noise and disturbance. However the coming and going of four householdswould be evident and would highlight the intensive nature of the scheme.Also, some of the proposed refuse and recycling bins would be sited justoutside the front living room window of 43 Leythe Road and their use wouldresult in noise, smell and loss of privacy for the occupants of that property22. Overall the scheme would fail to respect and would detract from the characterand appearance of the street scene and the living conditions of the occupantsof 43 Leythe Road. On their own these matters would not amount to reasonsfor dismissing this Appeal, however they highlight and exacerbate the crampedand unsatisfactory nature of the development.23. Policy 9.8 of the UDP encourages low car housing in areas where there arecontrolled parking zones, which includes Leythe Road. This is on the basis thatthe developer undertakes to form or contribute to a City Car Club and thatresidents of the scheme contribute to its management. Alternatively a “low carhousing clause” could be entered into which would prevent the occupants of thedevelopment from purchasing residents’ permit.24. The proposal provides no on-site parking and no legal agreement has beensubmitted relating to the formation or contribution to a City Car Club. Althoughthe Appellant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a legalagreement to limit the application for parking permits no such agreement hasbeen submitted. On the contrary the Appellant has confirmed that the propertyalready benefits from two residents parking permits. As such the proposalwould conflict with policy 9.8 of the UDP.25. The area in which the Appeal site is located is congested and the availability ofon-street parking to meet the needs of the occupants of all of the dwellings inLeythe Road is limited. Consequently without a legal agreement in placerelating to either a City Car Club or a restriction on parking permits theproposal would unacceptably increase the pressure for on-street parking in thevicinity. This would have an adverse effect on the free flow of traffic, whichwould have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would materiallydetract from the living conditions of existing residents, due to noise,disturbance and the reduced availability of on-street parking.Appeal Decision APP/A5270/A/12/216797126. Drainage, including drainage within the building is a matter that is dealt withunder the Building Regulations and any issues regarding ownership are aprivate legal matter. Finally any concerns regarding the handling of theAppeal application by the Council fall outside the scope of this Appeal, whichdeals solely with the planning merits of the proposed scheme.Conclusion27. Whilst I have found in favour of the Appellant on some points my conclusion onthe main issue and my findings in relation to character and appearance,parking and the living conditions of the occupier of 43 Leythe Road amount tocompelling reasons for dismissing this Appeal. These matters could not besatisfactorily addressed by the imposition of conditions.Elizabeth LawrenceINSPECTOR
Jennifer Monaghan ● 5073d0 Comments