13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 October 2024 by H Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 December 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/24/3347429 13 North Street, Lambeth, London SW4 0HN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Atlas Realty Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. • The application Ref is 24/00728/FUL. • The development proposed is flat conversion to create 1(one)-bedroom (2 p) flat on the first floor, and a 2(two)-bedroom, (3 p) flat on the second floor. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are four main issues. These are whether the proposed development would a) provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers with specific regard to internal floor space, storage space and outdoor amenity space; b) promote the use of sustainable transport modes with specific regard to cycle storage; and c) provide suitable facilities for waste and recycling storage; and d) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with specific regard to car parking.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Reasons Living Conditions 3. The debate in terms of the quantitative adequacy of the floorspace relates to the second floor flat and specifically whether or not the appeal scheme seeks a two-bed unit for three people or four. If it were the former, the overall floorspace would be acceptable under the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and, by association, Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (LLP). If it were the latter, it would be in the region of five square metres too small. 4. The appellant has offered a description which suggests the unit would be for three people. The plans confirm such. Bedroom 2 is on the large side for single occupancy and is only half a square metre smaller than bedroom 1 which is intended to be the double. That said, there is no reason why a single bedroom can’t be close to or as large as one intended to be a double. The plans show a bed larger than a single one, but it is clearly smaller than the double in bedroom 1. There is also no reason as to why a single occupant cannot have a larger bed. I also agree with the appellant that furniture shown on the plans https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/24/3347429 can be treated as indicative. As would, in this case, the size of the sofa, the bath and the dining table as examples. 5. Essentially, there is nothing objectively compelling enough to suggest that the unit in question would not be as it has been described and referred to on the plans and to suggest otherwise is conjecture. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development would provide sufficient overall floor space. 6. Policies D6 and H5 also require 1.5 square metres for built in storage for a 1 bed 2 person flat and 2 square metres for a 2-bed flat regardless of the number of occupants. The second floor flat would include a cycle storage area on the first floor as well as a small area of storage on the second floor which appears to measure just over a square metre. The first floor flat only provides storage for cycles within the unit. 7. I cannot find reference in either Policy H5 or D6 that storage should be explicitly that and one could not count cycle storage as such under the NDSS and the development plan. It nonetheless stands to reason that since there is an additional requirement for cycle parking, it shouldn’t be double counted. I.e.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision if all or most of the areas identified as storage for both units were to be used for cycle parking, this would render both units close to no provided storage at all for the purposes envisaged by policy. With this and the above in mind, neither unit would have access to the minimum level of built in storage required. 8. The flats would not have access to any outdoor amenity space whatsoever. The total floorspace of the units individually and combined would exceed the minimum requirements and I appreciate this can be used to ‘trade off’ against a lack of outdoor space under Policy H5 specifically. That said, I would not agree that this development would present an exceptional circumstance for such a situation and, in any case, the amount of floor space provided over the minimum would not equate to the explicit minimum requirements for outdoor space. 9.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision I appreciate that there are limited opportunities to provide outdoor space at the appeal site and the scheme would provide smaller flats that, it is suggested, are in demand, but these matters would be insufficient to make up for the fact that the scheme would provide no access to outdoor space at all and any additional in demand accommodation provided through the scheme would be limited in its scale. 10. Whilst the internal space would be sufficient, this would not make up for the proposed development’s shortcomings in regard to such for storage and private amenity. Resultantly, the appeal scheme would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers. There would thus be conflict with Policies H4, H5 and Q2 of the LLP and Policy D6 of the LP which together and amongst other matters seek to ensure that development provides accommodation at an acceptable level, standard and size. Sustainable Transport 11. Policy T5 of the LP requires development to provide appropriate levels of cycle parking, which is fit for purpose, secure and well located.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Table 10.2 of the policy sets out the minimum standards and requires one and a half cycle parking spaces for one-bedroom dwellings and two spaces for all other https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Table 10.2 of the policy sets out the minimum standards and requires one and a half cycle parking spaces for one-bedroom dwellings and two spaces for all other https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/24/3347429 dwellings. Due to the size of the proposal no short stay visitor cycle parking is required however part A2) of the Policy states that a minimum of two short- stay and two long-stay cycle parking spaces should be provided where the application of the minimum standards would result in a lower provision. The proposal would therefore require two cycle spaces for each flat and a minimum of two additional short-stay spaces. 12. The plans show that cycle parking for both flats would be provided. Each would be of sufficient size to accommodate two cycles and would meet the minimum standard. However, as they would be on the first floor of the building, up winding staircases where occupiers would have to carry heavy cycles and associated equipment. They would not be easily accessible and thus not, for the purposes of Policy T5, be well located. In addition, there would not be any provision for short stay cycle parking. 13. With this and the above in mind, the proposal would not acceptably promote sustainable means of transport.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision It would therefore conflict with Policies Q13 and T3 of the LLP and Policy T5 of the LP which together, and amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development provides adequate secure and covered cycle parking in the interests of promoting access to sustainable transport modes and reducing the reliance on the private car. Waste and Recycling 14. The Design and Access Statement states that the bins would be stored in the passageway between the appeal site and No 11 where they are currently. This area is outside of the red line indicating the appeal site. The appellants final comments indicate that to the rear of the site is a courtyard where the bins could be securely stored. Whilst I saw this on my site visit, this is not shown on the plans and as such was not considered by the Council. If an appeal is made, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the council, and on which interested people’s views were sought.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Further, it would be problematic to be able to impose conditions requiring the submission of details to be provided within areas that are outside of land confirmed as being in the control of the appellant. 15. The proposal would not therefore provide suitable waste and recycling storage facilities. It would thus conflict with Policy Q12 of the LLP which amongst other matters seeks to ensure that that refuse and recycling storage is fully integrated into the design from the outset and is secure and safe. It would also conflict with the guidance in the Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements Technical Specification for Architects & Designers 2023 and the Refuse and Recycling Storage Design Guide 2022 which have similar aims. Highway Safety and Parking 16. The vicinity of the appeal site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 5. In such situations, Policy T6 of the LP suggests that parking should be restricted. Specifically, in being permit free and reducing the reliance on the public highway to meet parking requirements. This is reinforced by the appeal site being within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The scheme does not appear to provide for off street parking.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision As well as following the development plan’s direction towards the use of sustainable transport modes in new development, the Council also have substantive concerns that, in the absence of controls to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision As well as following the development plan’s direction towards the use of sustainable transport modes in new development, the Council also have substantive concerns that, in the absence of controls to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/24/3347429 ensure the proposed development is car free (through the use of a number of initiatives) then the existing parking stress and congestion on local roads would be exacerbated. 17. I have no data pertaining to the existing stress levels on the surrounding network but the requirements of the development plan, the direction towards sustainable transport modes and the fact that the appeal site is within an existing CPZ that the Council would prefer not to issue new permits for, it is reasonable to conclude that on street parking locally is at a premium. 18. As a conversion scheme, the two floors affected by the proposals have previously been in residential use. It is unclear if previous occupiers either had access to personal vehicles or operated them from the appeal site. What is reasonable to conclude however is that the scheme would increase the number of self-contained residential units at the appeal site, in net terms, by one. This has the potential to increase the possibility that any new occupiers could generate additional car ownership.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision This might be one or two vehicles at best but, having regard to the above, there appears to be an approach to avoid situations which might represent the ‘thin end of the wedge’. 19. To ensure occupiers do not use the private car, reduce on street parking stress and any impingement on highway safety and lean on the use of sustainable transport modes, the Council expect the appellant to enter into an agreement under other legislative powers. Such an agreement, in sustainable transport encouragement terms, would also look to existing initiatives such as cycle and car club membership owing to local provision amongst other things. I note the appellant does not explicitly decline to enter into such an agreement (a planning obligation in this case), only that this could be secured through planning conditions and is not needed prior to a decision on a given scheme being issued. 20. Planning Practice Guidance advises that a condition requiring one to enter into a planning obligation under either Section 106 of the 1990 Planning Act or other legislation is unlikely to pass the test of enforceability or be appropriate in the majority of cases.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision Ensuring that one is entered into prior to granting planning permission is the best way to deliver sufficient certainty for all parties about what is being agreed. It encourages the parties to finalise such matters in a timely manner and is important in the interests of maintaining transparency. 21. In exceptional circumstances, a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation or other agreement to be entered into before certain development can commence may be appropriate, where there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious risk (this may apply in the case of particularly complex development schemes). I remain to be convinced that the appeal case and all that it entails would represent such a situation. 22. In the absence of a sufficiently robust mechanism to address the above matters, the appeal scheme would not suitably or acceptably address the development plans requirements to minimise car use, direct new development to the use of sustainable transport and, specifically in regard to the appeal site’s situation, not lead to an exacerbation of on street parking stress which could inhibit the free flow of traffic and harm highway safety.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/N5660/W/24/3347429 23. It would therefore be contrary to Policies D4 and T1 of the LLP and Policy T6 of the LP which, amongst other matters, require developers to demonstrate that their development will not adversely effect on-street parking and highway safety. Policy T7 of the LLP is referred to in the reason for refusal. This refers to servicing and is not relevant to the proposal. The Council have in any case confirmed that reference to Policy T7 was an error. Other Matters 24. I note the appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the case. However, this is a matter that would need to be taken up with them in the first instance. In determining this appeal, I am only able to have regard to the planning merits of the case. Planning Balance and Conclusion 25. The appeal scheme would give rise to numerous harms and conflict with the development plan as I have set them out. Given their nature and extent of development plan conflict, I afford these matters substantial weight. The scheme would create new homes which would contribute towards boosting national supply and ensure a currently disused building is brought back into use.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — Appeal Decision It would only provide one new dwelling in net terms however and there is nothing to ensure it would be secured as affordable. With this and the above in mind, I would ascribe these matters moderate weight. 26. I am therefore led to conclude that there is nothing of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan and that, consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.

13 North Street, London, SW4 0HN — London Borough of Lambeth — H Senior INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5