Case 3304035

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT

London Borough of Lambeth — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
10 February 2023
Authority
London Borough of Lambeth
Inspector
Dade E
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mrs Christine Armstrong, Designworks
LPA reference
21/05011/FUL
ONS LPA code
E09000022
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
9 November 2022

Summary AI

The appeal for a ground floor side extension and change of use to create two residential units was dismissed due to harm to highway safety and sustainable travel. The proposal would increase demand for parking and fail to provide car club membership, contrary to Lambeth Local Plan policies. While the proposal would not adversely impact the area's housing stock, this was outweighed by the harm identified.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 January 2023 by E Dade BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 February 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/22/3304035 4 Leppoc Road, London SW4 9LT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Christine Armstrong of Designworks against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. • The application Ref 21/05011/FUL, dated 23 December 2021, was refused by notice dated 21 April 2022. • The development proposed is ground floor side extension addition. Change of use from single residence into ground floor flat and maisonette above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposal on: • Highway safety and sustainable travel; and • The area’s housing stock, with particular regard to the provision of family housing. Reasons Highway safety and sustainable travel 3. The appeal property is situated on a terraced street with on-street parking at either side of the carriageway.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision At the time of my site visit, few parking spaces were available suggesting parking availability in the area is limited. 4. The appeal site is within a controlled parking zone. Policy H6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 (LLP) states that in controlled parking zones no additional car parking permits will be issued to occupiers of additional housing units created through conversion. Likewise, LLP Policy T6 requires all new development in controlled parking zones to be permit free. 5. The issuing and control of car parking permits is a function of the Council, and the appeal property benefits from an existing parking permit. However, the scheme’s parking provision is a relevant consideration in this appeal. The above requirements of Policy H6 apply to all residential conversions and Policy T6 applies to all developments irrespective of scale. The proposal involves the extension and conversion of the appeal property to form two residential units; a one-bed unit and a three-bed unit. The Council has confirmed that the one- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/22/3304035 bed unit should be treated as the additional unit to which the permit free requirement should apply. 6. The proposal is modest in scale with a net addition of just one unit, and through a reduction in the total number of bedrooms, the proposal could reduce the maximum number of occupants accommodated on the site. Despite this, the proposed dwellings would be occupied by separate households with separate travel needs. I consider that, in the absence of control measures, the proposal has a realistic prospect of increasing demand for parking. 7. Policy T6 also requires car club membership be made available to residents of all new development, thereby minimising demand for parking by providing access to a shared vehicle. The appellant’s statement has drawn my attention to the Council’s S106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2008 (SPD). Having reviewed the SPD’s guidance, I am satisfied that the thresholds stated relate to the formation of new car clubs for major developments and do not conflict with Policy T6’s requirement for car club membership for occupants of new development. 8.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision The Council indicates that car parking permit free development and financial contributions towards car club membership should be secured through legal agreements such as a Unilateral Undertaking or s106 agreement. I acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to enter into a legal agreement. However, no such agreement has been submitted. 9. The appellant has suggested the requirement to enter into a legal agreement be secured through a pre-commencement condition. The government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 states that ensuring that any planning obligation or other agreement is entered into prior to granting planning permission is the best way to deliver sufficient certainty for all parties about what is being agreed. The PPG indicates that a condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases. However, in exceptional circumstances, a negatively worded condition may be appropriate. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s reasons for not wishing to enter into a planning obligation at this stage, such reasons are not an exceptional circumstance. 10.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision In the absence of a legal agreement to secure car parking permit free development and to secure a financial contribution to provide all new residents with car club membership, I must conclude that the proposal would increase on-street parking stress. The proposal would therefore harm highway safety and fail to promote sustainable travel choices. For these reasons, the proposal would not comply with LLP Policy T6 and LLP Policy H6 which require residential conversions to be car parking permit free and provide car club membership for all occupants. Provision of family housing 11. The appeal property is an existing three-storey terraced dwelling with additional living space in the loft. LLP Policy H6 sets out requirements for the conversion of dwellings into smaller units. Of particular significance is Policy H6’s requirement that “the proposal provides a mix of unit sizes including the 1 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21a-010-20190723 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/22/3304035 provision, where practicable, of a family-sized home; at ground-floor level with direct access to a rear garden”. 12. The proposal would include a one-bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit and would therefore provide a mix of units including a family-sized home. However, the proposed three-bedroom unit would be located on the upper floors and would not have access to the appeal property’s rear garden. 13. A roof terrace of modest proportions would provide external amenity space for the proposed three-bedroom unit. Whilst the roof terrace falls short of minimum space standards, the Council accepts that the standard of accommodation provided by the scheme’s design would be acceptable. Therefore, even if it may be practicable to provide the three-bedroom unit at the ground floor, the absence of harm to living conditions from the proposed layout outweighs this particular requirement of Policy H6. 14. Consequently, I find the proposal would not result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for occupation by families and therefore would not adversely impact the area’s housing stock.

Page 3 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision The proposal would comply with LLP Policy H6 which supports the conversion of larger homes into self-contained units. Other Matters 15. The proposal would make a modest contribution to the area’s housing needs through the addition of one dwelling on an existing developed site within a residential area and would bring modest benefits to the local economy. The Council’s decision did not identify harm in respect of character and appearance, living conditions, or other adverse environmental impacts. However, such factors do not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of highway safety and sustainable travel. Conclusion 16. Although the proposal would not adversely impact the area’s housing stock, for the reasons given above, having assessed the case against the development plan as a whole and having had regard to all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 3 · Chunk 7 E Dade

4 Leppoc Road, LONDON, SW4 9LT — London Borough of Lambeth — E Dade INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶3

The proposal would increase on-street parking stress due to the lack of car parking permits and the absence of control measures.

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶7

Policy T6 requires car club membership to be made available, but the proposal does not include this.

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶10

In the absence of a legal agreement to secure car parking permit free development and car club membership, the proposal would increase on-street parking stress.

Green belt
For appellant
¶14

The proposal would not result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for occupation by families, so it would not adversely impact the area's housing stock.

Affordable housing
For appellant
¶14

The proposal would provide a mix of unit sizes, including a family-sized home, so it would comply with Policy H6.

Flood risk
Neutral

Not mentioned in the decision letter.

Heritage impact
Neutral

Not mentioned in the decision letter.

Housing land supply
For appellant
¶15

The proposal would make a modest contribution to the area's housing needs through the addition of one dwelling on an existing developed site.

Ecology and biodiversity
Neutral

Not mentioned in the decision letter.

Trees and landscape
Neutral

Not mentioned in the decision letter.

Agricultural land
Neutral

Not mentioned in the decision letter.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶9

The appellant is willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure car parking permit free development and car club membership.

Other
For appellant
¶16

The proposal would comply with other policies and would not have adverse environmental impacts.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Lambeth Local Plan 2021 (LLP) Policy H6
Determinative
Lambeth Local Plan 2021 (LLP) Policy T6
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 10 February 2023 under the Open Government Licence.