Location 21 Westwell Road London SW16 5RU

Ward Streatham South Proposal Conversion of single family dwelling to 3 self contained flats with associated alterations to the front garden area to provide off-street car parking. Application Type Full Planning Permission Application No 05/02913/FUL/DC_AB/21982 Applicant Mr G. Richardson Agent Mr A Worthington

1561 London Road Norbury London SW16 4AD Date Valid 29 September 2005 Considerations

Within 100m of Trunk Road Within 100m of Trunk Road

Approved Plans

21 WES-os, 21 WES-con-1, 2a, 3, 4.

Recommendation REFUSE PERMISSION

Officer Report 05/02913/FUL 1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main planning issues involved in this application are: -

(i) Suitability of the building for residential conversion (ii) Impact on the area and character of the streetscene (iii) Impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours (iv) Likely impact on transport and parking stress (v) Living conditions

2. Site Description

2.1. The application relates to a three-storey, semi-detached dwellinghouse. The second floor is

within the pitched roofspace, which has been extended. The property also has an established single storey ground floor rear extension. The property has an overall original floorspace, (excluding rear and roof extensions) of approximately 147square metres, and a south-east facing rear garden 20m long x 10m wide (200sqm) and a north-west facing front garden

( 6m deep x 10m wide).

2.2. The property is located on the edge of a residential area with the rear boundary adjoining a large single storey Sainsburys foodstore, which is within Streatham Common Conservation Area.

2.3. The land use of the road is entirely residential which site visit records indicate comprise a

total of 40 properties; of which 16 (40%) are in use as flats.

2.4. Westwell Road is an ‘L’ shaped unclassified residential access road, not within a Controlled Parking Zone.

3. Planning History 3.1. On 7.1.2005 a Certificate of Lawful Development [proposed] was issued in respect of a loft

conversion, involving rear and side roof extensions with side and front rooflights, together with the erection of a single storey ground floor rear addition with a roof terrace and associated alterations (Ref 04/03379/LDCP/21982) The works have been built out in accordance with Permitted Development provisions/ approved plans.

3.2. Building works to form the conversion are in progress at the time of writing this report 4. Scheme Details 4.1. Application is made for conversion and use of the property as 3 self-contained flats, one flat

on each floor. The dwelling mix comprises 1 x 2 bedroom flat on the ground floor, 1 x 3 bedroom flat on the first floor and a studio unit in the roofspace at second floor level.

4.2. External alterations indicated on the submitted plans comprise:-

removal of front boundary and formation of a new hardstanding of brick paviors to accommodate two car parking spaces. (As part of the present building works some of the windows on the side / front elevation have been bricked up or obscure glazed. No extensions are proposed as part of this application.

5. Consultation Responses 5.1. Neighbouring occupiers of houses / flats at 17, 19,23, 24 26, 28 Westwell Road, 480

Streatham High Road, Streatham Society, Streatham Vale Poperty Occupiers, Transport for London, Regulatory Services Noise and Pollution, Transport/Highways, and Streetcare have been consulted, and a notice has been displayed in the local area.

5.2. An objection received from a local resident is summarised as follows:-

(i) drawings do not accurately show windows in side and rear elevations (ii) Side windows should have opaque glazing (iii) Building work has already commenced.

5.3. An objection received from a local ward Councillor (Cllr Heather), with a request that,

even if the proposal is recommended for refusal, the case be reported to Committee, is summarised as follows:-

‘I would wish formally to object to an application for the conversion and change of use of 21 Westwell Road, SW16 from a single family dwelling to 3 flats.

My objection is based on the excessive number of single family dwelling units being converted into flats in the Streatham Area, the cumulative effect of which will result in an unbalanced community, with far fewer families and far more transient residents who are less likely to have a stake in the local community. There is also the fact that no corresponding public transport improvements are planned to deal with the huge planned increase in the number of residents resulting from such conversions. Rail services at Streatham and Streatham Common Station are totally inadequate and bus services are inadequate at this lower end of Streatham. I would like it (this application) to go to PAC for members consideration.’

6. Planning Considerations 6.1. Relevant Policies 6.1.1. National Guidance: PPG3 – Housing

6.1.2. Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) Policies:- H1 Housing Provision H10: Residential Development Standards

Standards ST1 -Layout and Design, ST2 – Density, ST3 – Daylight and Sunlight, ST4 – Security and Safety, ST5 - Privacy,

ST7 - Landscaping, ST8 – Residential Extensions, ST11- Layout, Parking and Servicing, ST13 -Refuse ST18: Parking for residential conversions

H17 Flat conversions. CD18 Extensions / Alterations. T17 Transport implications of development proposals T36 Cycle parking ENV24 Waste management and disposal ENV25 Recycling and re-use

6.1.2 Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2006) Policies:-

9 Transport Impact 14 Parking and traffic restraint 15 Additional Housing 17 Flat conversions. 33 Alterations and extensions. 50 Waste

6.1.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance (2000):- SPG4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes 6.1.3 The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than

the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.

6.1.4 The current up-to-date statement of the Council's planning policies is contained in the

Replacement UDP. The Council has now received the Inspector's report (17th February 2006), considered his recommendations and approved Proposed Modifications, which were placed on deposit from 20th October - 1st December 2006. The Council's Cabinet, in approving the Proposed Modifications, also recommended that: "The Proposed Modifications, together with the unaltered parts of the Revised Deposit UDP, are approved for use for development control purposes".

6.1.5 These can be seen in the document London Borough of Lambeth Replacement UDP Incorporating Proposed Modifications (October 2006). This is part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP (scheduled for February 2007) and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP which the Inspector has supported.

6.1.6 However, until the Replacement UDP is adopted, regard also needs to be made of the existing Adopted UDP."

6.1.7 In considering material considerations other than the adopted development plan regard

should be had to relevant national and regional government policy. 6.2. Land Use

6.2.1 Policies H1 (Housing Provision) and H17 (Flat Conversions) of the Adopted UDP and

Policy 15 (Additional Housing) and Policy 17 (Flat Conversions) of the Revised Deposit UDP are relevant with regards to conversions.

Suitability for Conversion: 6.2.2 The property is currently laid out as a single-family dwelling. The proposal is to convert

the dwelling to three separate residential units therefore providing two additional residential units. The provision of additional residential units is in compliance with Policy H1 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 15 of the Revised Deposit UDP.

6.2.3 The purposes of Policy H17 and Policy 17 is to protect the limited stock of small, family

dwellings with gardens and to ensure that conversions only take place in dwellings that are large enough to be converted. They also aim to create an adequate mix of dwelling sizes within the Borough. The policies also aim to create a satisfactory standard of accommodation in respect of safe guarding the amenities of existing neighbours and prospective residents.

6.2.4 Policy H17 of the Adopted UDP states that conversion will only be permitted where the

original house exceeds two storeys in height and contains 6 or more habitable rooms (any extensions built in the previous five years are discounted). In this case, the property has a three storey original rear addition and contains 7 habitable rooms. In this regard the proposal is compliant with Policy H17 of the Adopted UDP.

6.2.5 Although the Revised Deposit UDP is not yet adopted, the Council has received the

Inspector’s Report and it is in the latter stages of the adoption process. Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP states that the minimum size for properties to be converted (original, pre-1948, un-extended) is 120sqm. In the context of Policy 17 (Conversions) the Inspector states that:

- ‘The encouragement of increased densities from conversions does not have to be at

the expense of creating unacceptable amenities for future occupants and existing residents’;

- ‘The policy strikes the right balance in terms of PPG3 and the London Plan in terms of making the best use of previously developed land, protecting amenities and providing a good range of housing choice’.

6.2.6 The Inspector is wholly supportive of this policy and further stated that, ‘The objective of

the policy (17) is to ensure that conversions of properties to flats is only permitted where the original dwelling is large enough to be sub-divided… It seeks to protect second-hand dwellings with gardens. These are laudable objectives and will help in securing and maintaining a balance of accommodation within the Borough.’

6.2.7 The Inspector’s report therefore recognises the need to balance the required increase in

housing densities whilst maintaining amenities in the local area and retaining the stock of small family dwellings. The minimum floor size of 120sq.m was considered in the report to be a suitable size threshold from which to determine a small family dwelling.

6.2.8 A concern raised by residents and echoed by Ward Councillors is that flat conversions will

result in the loss of family sized dwellings. On Westwell Road a visual observations in November 2006 revealed that the road contains a mixture of two and three storey residential properties. Of the total of 40 properties in the road, 40% are in use as residential flats.

6.2.9 With respect to the cumulative impact of the number of conversions that have taken place

within a specific area, Policy H17 of the Adopted UDP is silent on the matter. Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP has been recently modified. This is the subject of on-going consultation with the Greater Office for London. The Council's Cabinet, in approving the Proposed Modifications recommended that: "The Proposed Modifications, together with

the unaltered parts of the Revised Deposit UDP, are approved for use for development control purposes" (See paragraph 6.1.5 above).

6.2.10 The Proposed Modifications provide that the floor area threshold of 120sqm. ’will be higher where there is a need to safeguard the availability of three and four bedroom houses’. The supporting text accompanying the modified policy states:-

‘The minimum size threshold is generally 120 sq m but due to the high levels of conversions activity in parts of the Borough, particularly Streatham Vale and Brixton, three and four bedroom houses of more than 120 sq m floorspace will be safeguarded. This is necessary to ensure mixed and balanced communities and a spread of the supply of local housing to meet the full range of needs. This is in line with Government policy and the London Plan. The Council’s local housing needs assessment has highlighted a shortage of 3 and 4 bedroom family accommodation. A report for the GLA London Assembly (‘Size Matters: The need for more family homes in London June 2006) states that there is a surplus of 12,000 one bedroomed properties in London but a shortfall of over 28,000 two, three and four bedroomed dwellings, for which there is greatest need. Most new housing supply in recent years and in the future housing development pipeline consists of 1 and 2 bed units. The supply of flats through house conversions has also been dominated by small units. An analysis of planning applications approved during 2004 and 2005 showed that 86% of all flats were 1 and 2 bed units.

6.2.11 The supporting text also introduces reference to the impact of conversions on reducing of the choice and availability of accommodation for families and intensity of accommodation impacting on environmental stress. The text states

‘Streets in various parts of the Borough are now dominated by converted properties. This is not only reducing the choice and availability of accommodation for families but also has resulted in these areas experiencing stress on the environmental capacity to support such highly intensive levels of accommodation for which these properties and streets were not designed.’

6.2.12 The application property is to the edge or the Streatham Vale area, which is referred to in

the modification to Policy 17. The property is also larger and different in character from the properties in the Streatham Vale area, which are mainly terraced. In addition in this instance the application was received in September 2005, over a year before the fairly recent Modifications, which were made in October 2006. The proposed conversion would provide two family sized units, a 2 and a 3 bedroom unit, and approximately 60% of properties in Westwell Road remain in dwellinghouse use.

Dwelling Mix: 6.2.13 Policy H17 of the Adopted UDP requires the provision of a 3-bedroom, family sized unit in

conversions with direct access to a garden where the garden/ amenity area is 15sqm or greater, and where the property is reasonably capable of conversion to such a unit. The policy defines ‘reasonable’ as in cases where, ‘physically the ground floor/ semi-basement level is reasonably capable of conversion to such a unit.’ In this instance the property is not physically capable of providing a 3 bed unit on the ground floor and therefore a 2 bed unit is proposed. This is because the property’s ground floor footprint is too small to provide a 3 bed unit, and it does not have a basement. In this case it is considered that the property it is not reasonably capable of providing a three bed unit on the ground floor and therefore the proposal meets the requirements of Policy H17of the Adopted UDP. On the first floor it is possible to provide a three bedroom unit because

the flat on this level is able to use floorspace which, at ground level is taken up by a front entrance hall

6.2.14 Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP requires the provision of a family-sized unit (2 or

more bedrooms) with direct access to a garden area. A 2-bed unit is provided on the ground floor of the property with direct access to its own garden area, which is therefore in compliance with Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP.

6.2.15 Both Policy H17 and Policy 17 require that a full mix of unit sizes are provided. Policy H17

of the Adopted UDP specifically requires that, ‘subject to what can reasonably be achieved physically in the property to be converted, no more than one unit in a scheme providing up to five units … should be 1 bedroom units.’

6.2.16 Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP is less specific and states that, ‘conversions should

include a full mix of dwellings wherever this is practical whilst complying with the rest of this policy.’ The conversion would provide Studio unit, 1x2 bedroom flat and ! X 3 bedroom flat. In the context of the above, the proposal is considered to meet the criteria for dwelling mix as set out in Policy H17 and Policy 17.

Internal Layouts: 6.2.17 Both Policy H17 and 17 require that the proposed accommodation comply with room size

standards and ceiling height standards, as laid out in SPG4. Whilst the proposal in the main meets these standards insufficient information has been submitted to enable a full assessment of the habitable space in the proposed Studio unit in the roofspace at second floor level. Because insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate compliance with the SPG 4 Standards it is recommended that the application be refused on these grounds.

6.2.18 Part D of Policy 17 sets out a number of criteria which needs to be considered when

assessing an application for a conversion to ensure an acceptable standard of accommodation for future residents is created.

i. noise transmission should be minimised through the handing and stacking of

similar types of rooms; ii. they should, where practicable, be designed to be accessible to disabled persons,

unless the property has a lower ground floor level; iii. shared corridor access should be safe, internal and convenient. Units should be

self-contained unless the policy on shared housing (Policy 18) is met; iv. where practical, secure cycle storage should be provided; v. where possible, rear gardens should be retained or provided, without subdivision; vi. room sizes should have regard to relevant supplementary planning guidance; and vii. plans should involve minimal intervention to the internal structure and plan form of

the building (especially for historic buildings), unless existing room divisions are excessively large and/ or incapable of effective conversions, and include full details of external alterations.

6.2.19 Part D (i) requires that noise transmission is minimised through the handing and stacking

of similar types of room. Although not explicitly stated in the Policy, the Council’s Policy section confirm that the handing requirement specifically refers to the application site and an application relating to the creation of two separate units on the same site, and not to neighbouring properties. This is because the original party wall between properties is more substantial than internal partition walls, and more resistant to noise.

6.2.20 Noise transmission in this instance, is minimised on the first and second floor by similar

types of rooms being stacked above one another as required by Part D of Policy 17 of the

Revised Deposit UDP. The only exception is the relationship between the proposed ground floor flat and the first floor flat. The ground floor flat has one of the bedrooms below the first floor living area. Although this is not ideal, Building Regulations will ensure that adequate soundproofing is installed and noise transmission minimised. There is the potential to reverse this however, from the perspective of the living condition of the ground floor occupant, it has to be balanced against the fact that the existing layout is better with the kitchen living area having direct access to the garden. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy 17 of the Revised Deposit UDP.

6.2.21 The handing of rooms between the proposed development and its neighbours is not a

consideration of Policy 17. Any proposed conversion is required to have adequate sound insulation installed between the proposed flats within the conversion. This is a statutory requirement of Building Regulations. The RUDP Policy in relation to handing does not refer to the relationship between the proposal and neighbouring properties.

6.2.22 In light of the above It is considered that this property is large enough to meet the

Council’s Conversion Policy requirement. It will also contribute to providing a range of housing choices in terms of mix of housing sizes and types while taking account of the housing requirements of different groups of people. It is not considered that the proposed conversion would be out of keeping with the general character of the road. The conversion is therefore accepted in land use terms. This is compliant with Policies H1 (Housing Provision) and H17 (Flat Conversions) of the Adopted UDP and Policy 15 (Additional Housing) and Policy 17 (Flat Conversions) of the Revised Deposit UDP.

6.3. Design Considerations 6.3.1 Policies H10 (Residential Design Standards) and CD15 (Design of New Development)

and CD18 (Extensions) of the Adopted UDP and Policy 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity), Policy 32 (Building Scale and Design) and Policy 33 (Alterations and Extensions) of the Revised Deposit UDP are relevant with regards to extensions.

6.3.2 Proposed external alterations would be limited to modest alteration of the front forecourt

with removal of part of the front boundary and creation of a brick pavior hardstanding for car parking. Objection is raised to this on highway safety grounds, rather than on design grounds. No extensions are proposed as part of this application.

(see paragraph 6.5.3) 6.4 Amenity Impact 6.4.1 Policies H10 (Residential Design Standards - ST3 – Daylight and Sunlight, ST5 - Privacy,

ST13 Refuse Storage & Collection); H17 (Flat Conversions); CD15 (Design of New Development); and ENV24 and ENV25 (Waste Management and Recycling) of the Adopted UDP and Policies 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity), 17 (Flat Conversions), 33 (Alterations and Extensions) and 50 (Waste) of the Revised Deposit UDP.

6.4.2 No extensions are proposed as part of this application. However, the proposal includes

the use of the existing ground floor rear extension. This would provide a lawful first floor rear roof terrace as part of the proposed first floor three bedroom flat. Unusually access to this terrace would be from an existing door leading from a bathroom. Since the existing rear garden is to be wholly allocated to the proposed 2 bedroom ground floor flat it is likely that the use of the terrace as part of the proposed first floor flat would be greater than it would be if it were part of the existing dwelling house. The existing terrace is lawful,

modest in size. It is considered that it would not be reasonable or enforceable to condition the use of the terrace so as ensure that it would be similar to that of a single dwelling house.

6.4.3 In a recent Appeal Decision (29th Nov. 2006) an Inspector considered that restriction on

the use of a Permitted Development roof terrace, by a condition attached to a permission for conversion to flats, was preventing use of a lawful roof terrace and that it was an inappropriate exercise of power to impose such a condition under Section 70 of the 1990 Act.

(Ref App/N5660/A/06/2017070 Re 82 Dalberg Road, para 5,) The legal aspects of this are presently being considered at the request of Officers 6.4.4 Within the context described above it is considered that any planning permission for

conversion of the property should require suitable screening to safeguard privacy of neighbours. This has been requested but no drawings showing such screening has been submitted to the Council.

6.4.5 It is recognised that there may be general concern about the cumulative impact of flat

conversions on the grounds that they may lead to a loss of community, and could be detrimental to the character of a local area. In this instance, the proposal provides for two family size dwellings and following the proposed development 60% of the houses in the road would remain in single family use. It is not considered that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify a refusal on the basis of the principle of conversion of the property into flats.

6.5 Highways and Transportation Issues 6.5.1 Westwell Road is a residential access road not within a Controlled Parking Zone. The site

has a good Public Transport Accessibility Level of 5, with bus services along Streatham High Road and Greyhound Lane and Rail Stations within walking distance.

6.5.2 Transport for London state:- ‘‘Separating such a property into three flats will put

pressure on local parking and a car free option should be sought. The car parking spaces will remove kerb space and is not an overall gain in local parking provision. Cycle parking should be provided for residents and visitors to help reduce the need for car parking in the area. ‘’

6.5.3 The Council’s Transport Officer does not consider that the proposed development would

result in unacceptable parking stress. However, the proposed forecourt car parking would be unacceptable because visibility would be obstructed by the height of the side boundary of the site, constituting a traffic hazard. To correct this it is considered that proposed parking be moved away from the boundary wall so that the western edge of the proposed crossover is moved a minimum of 2 metres from the property boundary on the western side. The proposed access must be a maximum of 4 metres wide and should be located centrally between the off-street car parking spaces. Any boundary walls/fences/hedges should be no greater than 900 mm in height for the 2 metres either side of the access. Under current proposals, access to the off-street parking area would be hindered by the position of an existing lamp column. Revised drawings showing proposals to overcome such a traffic hazard have been requested but no revised drawings have been submitted. It is therefore recommended that this be refused on these grounds as well.

6.6 Other

6.6.1 It is considered that the garden at the front of the property would provide sufficient space

for storage of refuse and recycling. It is therefore considered that the proposed

conversion, in terms of refuse storage, would comply with Policies H10 - ST13; H17; ENV24 and ENV25 of the Adopted UDP and Policies 17 and 50 of the Revised Deposit UDP. Were the application to be recommended for approval, this aspect of the scheme would be reserved by Condition.

7 Conclusion

7.1 Having considered the proposed scheme against relevant Development Plan policies and other material considerations it is concluded that the property is large enough for conversion.

7.2 The proposed forecourt parking and vehicular access would lack

sufficient visibility by reason of the location and height of the side property boundary, which would be likely to result in a traffic hazard contrary to policies H10, T9, and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 31, 36 of Revised Lambeth Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004)

7.3 Insufficient information, in terms of ceiling height, has been submitted

to enable a full assessment to be made of the proposed studio unit on the second floor in order to ensure acceptable living conditions. Contrary to policies H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2000) SPG4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes and Policies 32 of Revised Lambeth Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006)

Recomme Recommendation:

Refuse planning permission.

Summary of Reasons: 1 The proposed vehicle access, and the obstruction of visibility, by the western site

boundary is likely to result in hazard and obstruction to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists using the public highway, contrary to Policies H10, CD15, T9, and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 9, 31, 36 of Revised Lambeth Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006)

2 Insufficient information, in terms of ceiling height, has been submitted to enable the Local

Planning Authority to make a full assessment of the proposed studio unit on the second floor in order to ensure acceptable living conditions. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H10 and CD15 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Supplementary Planning Guidance, (2000) SPG4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes and Policies 32 of Revised Lambeth Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006).