Decision. , item 44. PDF 104 KB - London Borough of Barking and ...

Appeals Decisions
Site visit made on 31 August 2011
by D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 3 October 2011
Appeal A: Ref: APP/Z5060/A/11/2151730
39 Park Avenue, Barking, Essex IG11 8QU
• The appeal is made by Ingenious Properties Limited under section 78 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal by the Council of the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham to grant planning permission.
• The application Ref 10/01012/FUL, dated 17 November 2010, was refused by notice
dated 14 January 2011.
• The development proposed is the conversion of the house into two one-bedroom flats.
Appeal B: Ref: APP/Z5060/C/11/2149688
Appeal C: Ref: APP/Z5060/C/11/2149767
39 Park Avenue, Barking, Essex IG11 8QU
• The appeals are made by Ingenious Properties Limited (Appeal B) and by Mortgage
Express (Appeal C) under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against an enforcement notice (ref: 08/00324) issued by the Council of the London
Borough of Barking and Dagenham on 10 February 2011.
• The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is the material change of use of a
single-family dwellinghouse to two separate flats.
• The requirements of the notice are to “Cease the use of the premises as flats, remove
the fittings and alterations (internal ground floor entrance doors/frames) that have been
installed, including the first floor kitchen, to achieve the current horizontal division and
conversion of the dwelling to two separate and self contained flats”.
• The period for compliance with these requirements is 3 months.
• Both appeals are proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(f) and (g).
• The planning applications deemed to be made by section 177(5) do not fall to be
considered, because the prescribed fees were not paid within the specified periods.
Decisions
Appeal A
Ref: APP/Z5060/A/11/2151730
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeals B & C
Refs: APP/Z5060/C/11/2149688 & APP/Z5060/C/11/2149767
2. It is directed that paragraph 6 of the enforcement notice be varied by replacing
the words below the heading by “Six months”. Subject to this direction, the
appeals are dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld as varied.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeals Decisions APP/Z5060/A/11/2151730, APP/Z5060/C/11/2149688 & APP/Z5060/C/11/2149767
Reasons for the decisions
Appeal A
3. The property is a 3-bedroom house, which has been converted into two 2bedroom
flats without planning permission. The appellant seeks to retain the
conversion with alterations that would create two 1-bedroom flats. The main
issues in assessing whether permission should be granted for this proposal are
whether the change of use is acceptable in principle, having regard to the
development plan policies, and whether the standard of accommodation that
would be provided for the occupiers of the flats would be adequate.
4. The policies are in the Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan
Document, which was formally adopted in March this year. Policy BC4, which
deals with flat conversions, states that the Council is seeking to preserve the
stock of family houses and that proposals involving the loss of housing with
three bedrooms or more will be resisted. It adds that other proposals for flat
conversions will only be considered acceptable if five criteria are satisfied.
Policy BP6 states that the Council will seek to ensure that converted flats
provide adequate internal space, and it sets out minimum floor areas for
various parts.
5. The original draft of Policy B4 was changed during the procedures leading to its
adoption. Early versions stated that proposals would be resisted which involved
the loss of family housing, particularly of homes with four or more bedrooms
and that, in addition, proposals would only be considered to be acceptable if
the five criteria were satisfied. Appeal decisions are normally based on the
adopted policies applying at the date of the decision. I do not consider that I
would be justified in taking a different approach in this instance, particularly
since the draft version published at the time of the decision notice is the same
as the adopted version and had been endorsed in the inspector’s report
following the examination in public, and the first reason given for refusing
permission identifies this version.
6. The property had three bedrooms before its conversion into flats and was
therefore the type of house that Policy BC4 seeks to preserve as part of the
Borough’s stock of family houses. There is a dispute between the parties as to
whether the first of the five criteria in the policy, which relates to the number
of flat conversions in the road, has been complied with. However, since in the
adopted version of the policy the five criteria relate only to “other proposals for
flat conversions” (i.e. those not involving the loss of housing with three
bedrooms or more), compliance with the criteria does not in this instance make
the flats acceptable under the policy.
7. Policy BP6 sets out standards for the aggregate floor space of the cooking,
eating and living areas in dwellings of various sizes and for the sizes of
bedrooms and storage cupboards. Neither of the 1-bedroom flats would meet
the minimum space standard set out in the policy for the aggregate of the
cooking, eating and living areas, although the shortfall for the first-floor flat
would be small. The proposed ground-floor bedroom would appear to meet the
minimum floor area set out in the policy, but the first-floor bedroom would be
considerably less than the minimum. No storage cupboard would be provided
for the first-floor flat.
2

Appeals Decisions APP/Z5060/A/11/2151730, APP/Z5060/C/11/2149688 & APP/Z5060/C/11/2149767
8. The main objective of Policy BC4 is to preserve the stock of family housing.
Whilst the reasoned justification for the policy, as well as national policies,
acknowledge that flat conversions can provide a valuable source of housing for
smaller households, 39 Park Avenue was the type of house that the policy
seeks to retain in order to address the loss of family homes and to ensure that
the current deficit is not worsened by further flat conversions. In addition, the
proposed conversion into two 1-bedroom flats would not produce the quality of
accommodation that Policy BP6 seeks to achieve. These considerations are
determining factors in this instance and the appeal has therefore been
dismissed.
Appeals B and C – ground (f)
9. Under ground (f), the appellant in Appeal B points to the difficulties that may
arise because of the split in ownership of the flats. The appellant in Appeal C
maintains that the requirements of the notice are ambiguous and do not
provide sufficient information as to what should be removed.
10. It is the responsibility of all persons having interests in the flats to comply with
the requirements of the notice. The requirements could have been drafted
more simply, but it is clear that they require the removal of the internal
ground-floor entrance doors and frames and the first-floor kitchen. These
works sustain the breach of planning control and the requirement to remove
them is not excessive.
11. The appeals on ground (f) therefore fail.
Appeals B and C – ground (g)
12. Under ground (g), both appellants point to the difficulties that may arise
because of the separate ownerships of the flats. The appellant in Appeal B
notes that in similar cases a six-months’ compliance period has been accepted
on appeal. The appellant in Appeal C seeks a compliance period of one year. In
response, the Council have indicated that they would have no objection to an
extension of the compliance period to six months.
13. As noted above, it is the responsibility of all persons having interests in the
flats to comply with the requirements of the notice. The works required are
straightforward and the first-floor flat is empty. However, to allow sufficient
time for the occupiers of the ground-floor flat to find new accommodation and
for the ground-floor works to be carried out, it would be reasonable to extend
the compliance period to six months. The appeals on ground (g) have
therefore succeeded to this extent.
D.A.Hainsworth
INSPECTOR
3