The End of the Ladder No Conversion Policy?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 17, 2014 at 22:24

Comments below have been moved from the Hewitt Road infill thread:

Reply by Hugh 5 hours ago

Now the not so good news. It seems that this planning permission has just been sought so that the land can be sold. I guess it's part of the garden of the house on Wightman that was recently bought and converted into 3 or 4 flats. My other half remembers that being bought for £500/600k. What with this £300k and whatever they got for the flats, they've done pretty well out of that little development - though it does seems to have slipped through the no-conversion net.

Buy the land via Winkworth.

Reply by Geoff 5 hours ago

So, how did this 'slip through the no conversion net'? Was planning permission applied for? Did nearby residents in Hewitt Rd and Wightman Road object to the proposed development, or draw the attention of Enforcement and Building Control to the works being carried out? Did Planning fail to notice the multiple conversions made in one single family house? Were enforcement alerted to the unauthorised conversion? If the conversion was unauthorised, surely the Council had the powers to convert the house back to its original configuration. There are a lot of unanswered questions here on what should have been a cut-and-dry situation.

Reply by Tris 1 hour ago

The info is all out there if you look for it. The adjacent house at 174 Wightman Road had planning permission in 2012 for conversion to two units of 2 beds and 4 beds - see here.

Reading the consultation comments, Karen Alexander raised the point about this house being in the 'no conversion zone' but this was countered with the argument that there is very little demand locally for a single family home the size of this big double-fronted building, and that it would better serve the needs of the community as more modestly sized units. They also argued that the development wouldn't place any undue pressure on the existing street parking.

It was sold for £450k in 2011 (including the garage on Hewitt) and current values are about £500k (listing here) and £300k for the flats plus another £300k for the development plot. Allowing £100k or so for the conversion, that's a profit of up to half a million before tax but after three years, a considerable amount of work and a general rise in property prices locally.

If there's little demand for huge houses in the area the only other option is to rent them out as rooms, which isn't a popular choice, so this type of development seems to be a positive step. What the Council's policy should aim to protect is a good mix of flats, houses and rooms to cater to a mix of people with different space requirements, so there is room for a bit of flexibility

Reply by Hugh 21 minutes ago

This is perhaps a significant decision since it goes apparently against Haringey Supplementary Guidance HSG11 which says:

It is considered that in the areas mentioned above the majority of properties have been converted into flats and are now experiencing problems of extreme parking pressure and a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Any additional increase in on street parking would be detrimental to the effective operation of bus services. Therefore conversions will usually be resisted in these areas as they have already reached their capacity for conversions. The restricted conversion areas are identified in SPG3a Density, Dwelling Mix, Floorspace Minima, Conversions, Extensions and Lifetime Homes.

There is a clear assumption that has been generally accepted that this means no conversions. If the Council are changing their interpretation of this policy, it seems strange that this is apparently being slipped in without any announcement. I note that the decision notice made no reference to HSG11 and why this property might be an exception.
There is, it seems an element of discretion in the policy, but it's not previously been used as far as I'm aware. My concern is whether this will be seen as setting a precedent. If it is, it ought to be discussed locally first.

Reply by Nicholas 5 minutes ago

You need to dig a little further Hugh. Refer to consultation comment number 5 in Tris' link above. It seems this is an exception to the rule due to the size of the property.

Reply by Hugh 1 second ago

Thanks for that useful link, Nicholas, but it really underscores my point. Here's what Haringey's Paul Smith wrote in response to Cllr Alexander's letter:

1) In relation to loss of family housing I consider that the policy was designed to prevent the loss of smaller family houses which closely match the size of the property to be converted.

2) In relation to parking the transportation Team will be asked to comment, before any decision is made, on the level of parking stress in this location and on whether or not they consider that granting planning permission in this case would result in greater parking pressure in the locality.

With particular regard to his point 1, note that he has used personal discretion in making his decision. HSG11 makes not explicit or implicit reference to size as a criterion in the exercise of the discretion the policy implies (and do not that this discretion is only implied).
Is the Council happy, are our councillors happy, are we happy that the policy designed to meet a specific need in our area is to be whittled away with such broadly drawn discretion?

Reply by Geoff 4 minutes ago

I'm afraid that this is a ludicrous and specious justification of the permission granted. The Ladder area is over-saturated with conversions and subdivisions - and HMOs, far in excess of what is considered to be the norm - many through illegal conversions. This is why the Ladder is a strictly no-conversion area. To ignore the directive is not justifiable. There is, in fact, pretty intense pressure on street parking - just try parking late in the evening and often one has to drive round the streets to find parking spaces.
The area's single family dwellings are considered highly attractive by families and are pre-eminently marketable and sellable as such and, in addition, residents value the increased stability that the single family dwellings bring to their streets and balance the over-supply of converted houses. The retention of single family dwellings (which will be snapped up by eager family buyers) is absolutely vital in this area and maintains a desirable mix of property types (dwelling mix). There is no reason whatsoever for the Planning dept to overrule the Directive in favour of developers who do not live in the area and whose only interest is in their profits, not the enhancement of the quality of life of the established community.

Hugh is absolutely right to raise the issue in relation to the Haringey Supplementary Guidance, which is well worth repeating:

"It is considered that in the areas mentioned above the majority of properties have been converted into flats and are now experiencing problems of extreme parking pressure and a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Any additional increase in on street parking would be detrimental to the effective operation of bus services. Therefore conversions will usually be resisted in these areas as they have already reached their capacity for conversions. The restricted conversion areas are identified in SPG3a Density, Dwelling Mix, Floorspace Minima, Conversions, Extensions and Lifetime Homes."

It is disappointing that residents nearby to the property did not take the bit between the teeth and challenge the application or its outcome; it is possible, of course, that they had little knowledge of what was taking place or the background to the exiting policy, but that is not really an excuse for doing nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 17, 2014 at 23:01

Geoff, the application was objected to by Cllr Alexander and, as we have seen that objection was batted back. I suspect other objections would have been dealt with in the same way. I hadn't been aware of Paul Smith's response to Karen until Nicholas pointed it out just now. 

Still, we are where the are and I think berating Hewitt/Wightman residents for our failure to act is as pointless and beating up the LCSP for not doing so. I imagine the answer from all parties would be that we lead busy lives and we all do what we can. Sometimes a thing slips through the net. The time for soul-searching is later perhaps. The question for us all now is what next?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 17, 2014 at 23:21

HSG11 attached

Attachments:

• housing-3.pdf, 90 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 10:26

.....and one of the flats has just popped up on the market.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 14:04

Ah, yes, you're right. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 14:39

Yes Tris, I pointed out that discretion was implied. I also pointed out that in custom and practice it has not been exercised. If suddenly an officer has decided to use it, residents had better take notice. Or do you advocate a more laissez faire approach?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 17:05

I'm not over-concerned about this instance, Tris. I'm neither reacting nor over-recating to this single case. As I said in my first comment on this issue, my concern is whether this will set a precedent. It's perfectly possible that Alexander is pointing to a steam of conversion approvals on the Ladder of which I've been unaware. Plenty manages to pass me by, but to the best of my knowledge conversions have till now always been challenged by planning under HSG11.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 19:21

Well, Tris, I do my best to keep up with planning & other issues, and I was unaware that the policy was being set aside in this way. It is my understanding that most other Ladder residents believe this is a no conversion zone too.

It seems, however, that I have been suffering under a misapprehension. So I am glad this issue has been surfaced. Let me be clear; at this point I am not debating the wrongness or rightness of whether permission should be granted to convert Ladder houses to flats. What I am saying is that I expect there to be an auditable trail to officers' decisions that show the grounds on which a decision was taken. Right now, it is my contention that no such trail exists.

Let's look at the two examples raised in this thread. In the first no mention whatsoever is made to HSG11. So, it has been set aside without explanation. That cannot be right. Since there is an assumption that it will be applied, there ought to be careful explanation of why it was set aside. In the second case, reference was made to HSG11, but selectively; the officer referred to the parking provision element of the policy but completely ignored the issue of loss of family homes.

Let me repeat, at this point my focus is on process. I expect a clear and transparent process that I can follow and challenge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 18, 2014 at 21:13

Thanks, Tris. I hadn't looked at the Officer's Report. I had wrongly assumed that everything would be in the decision notice.

So, let's look a what was said in the report (You can skip this bit if you like, or come back to it later, since I've copied it part by part below as I go through each point).

Conversion

The Council has a specific policy in regards to conversions which states that permission will be granted for conversions where:(a) the property is of an appropriate size to be converted i.e. is more than 120 square metres in size, (b) the proposal would not fall into a restricted area ; (c) the proposal would not result in more than 20% of houses in the street being HMO and/or conversions; and (d) would not harm the amenity or character of the surrounding area or cause adverse parking problems.

The original house has more then 5 habitable rooms and has a net internal floor area in excess of 120 square metres. This meets the minimum floorspace required under policy HSG1 for conversion.

The site is located within a restricted conversion area. Planning Policy HSG 11 states that planning permission for conversion will not be granted for conversions in Restricted Conversion Areas. The main reasons for this are 1) Loss of family housing and 2) Parking stress.

1) In relation to loss of family housing it is considered that the policy was designed to prevent the loss of smaller family houses. The existing property is significantly above the threshold size for a small family house and is located on a busy road which is not considered an ideal environment for larger family occupation. On balance it is considered that in this location its conversion into two smaller units of accommodation would result in a more beneficial use without any adverse effect upon local amenity.

2) In relation to parking the Transportation Team have been consulted and has commented that off-street parking requirement attached to Policy HSG 11 still applies in relation to the above development proposal and therefore we as highway and transportation authority they would object to the proposal.

As regard the issue of parking pressure, a Traffic Impact Assessment based on the Lambeth Methodology was carried out by the on the 12 September 2012. The Council Transportation Team responded that ‘we can confirm that the latest Traffic Impact Assessment dated 12 September 2012 has been conducted and produced in accordance with the Lambeth Methodology and we would therefore not wish to challenge the findings attached to the report’.

It is therefore considered that since the findings of the traffic impact assessment indicates that there are, on several different hours (time) various empty parking spaces along Wightman Road, the proposed conversion would not cause any significant harm in terms of parking pressure.

Furthermore, it is known that the property was marketed for sale from October 2010 on a joint sole basis by Paul Simon Estate Agents and Winkworth Agents as a single family accommodation but it did not generate interest as the size and condition made it unattractive to buyer looking for a family home.

Layout for Conversions

The proposal would re-organise the existing property to form 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats. The ground floor unit is 68sqm and the first floor unit is 64sqm. The flat sizes, room sizes and layout meet the standards as set out in the Housing SPD. 

Let's take the decision criteria he cites in his first paragraph one by one. The officer says they are the official Council criteria used to decide whether permission will be granted for conversions:

(a) the property is of an appropriate size to be converted i.e. is more than 120 square metres in size.

The officer says:

The original house has more then 5 habitable rooms and has a net internal floor area in excess of 120 square metres. This meets the minimum floorspace required under policy HSG1 for conversion.

Pass. It was a big house! The area of a typical Ladder House is 70 sq m.

 

(b) the proposal would not fall into a restricted area;

Fail. The Ladder is a restricted conversion area. (The two key tests set in a restricted conversion area are covered in criterion d).

(c) the proposal would not result in more than 20% of houses in the street being HMO and/or conversions

Not answered. I cannot see that the officer has responded to this issue. Had he done so, I would be very surprised if he had concluded that less than 20% of the houses on Wightman are converted to flats.

 

(d) would not harm the amenity or character of the surrounding area or cause adverse parking problems.

The officer says:

1) In relation to loss of family housing it is considered that the policy was designed to prevent the loss of smaller family houses. The existing property is significantly above the threshold size for a small family house and is located on a busy road which is not considered an ideal environment for larger family occupation. On balance it is considered that in this location its conversion into two smaller units of accommodation would result in a more beneficial use without any adverse effect upon local amenity.

2) In relation to parking the Transportation Team have been consulted and has commented that off-street parking requirement attached to Policy HSG 11 still applies in relation to the above development proposal and therefore we as highway and transportation authority they would object to the proposal.

As regard the issue of parking pressure, a Traffic Impact Assessment based on the Lambeth Methodology was carried out by the on the 12 September 2012. The Council Transportation Team responded that ‘we can confirm that the latest Traffic Impact Assessment dated 12 September 2012 has been conducted and produced in accordance with the Lambeth Methodology and we would therefore not wish to challenge the findings attached to the report’.

It is therefore considered that since the findings of the traffic impact assessment indicates that there are, on several different hours (time) various empty parking spaces along Wightman Road, the proposed conversion would not cause any significant harm in terms of parking pressure.

On the amenity aspect, judgment reserved, but I'm going to say insufficient case made. The officer's justification was that the house is "located on a busy road which is not considered an ideal environment for larger family occupation".

So here the officer has introduced his own test. He's saying that high traffic levels make properties unsuitable for families. I think we need to question whether this is official Council policy. I'd be surprised to hear that they would support this and in so doing effectively condemn roads with higher levels of traffic. If this is Council policy, they need to look at the effect of their traffic decisions elsewhere - like the knock on impact to the Ladder of closing the Gardens and Hermitage Road to traffic.

On the traffic aspect, I will accept the officer's conclusion that his decision was made in accordance with reference to the proper data. However, the traffic assessment was made in part of the basis of there being an additional parking space provided in the garage behind the house. This garage is now up for sale as a building plot (which is where this whole discussion began). So on this basis the traffic case becomes null and void. At the point this decision was made on this aspect - pass. With the benefit of hindsight fail.

So against the tests the officer himself set, we have the following results:

a. Pass

b. Fail

c. Not answered

d1.Insufficient case made

d2. Pass / Fail

This doesn't look compelling to me. I imagine we could do a similar analysis of the Woollaston house and I suspect that it wouldn't pass the size test, let alone the others.

If people are happy for the future of their neighbourhood to be made in this way, then I respect their point of view. For my part, I'd like to see rather more rigour applied on our behalf.

In conclusion, firstly I've learned that apparently we don't live in a no conversion zone. That's helpful to know. Having learned that, I am unclear about how the policy has been applied in the past and uncertain about its future application.

In response to this I would like to see clarity brought to the policy issue as a matter of urgency.

Finally, in what situation does this leave the land behind the house that's currently for sale? It was part of the basis on which planning permission for the conversion of 174 Wightman was granted. Should permission for its use for building therefore be withdrawn?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Smith on February 18, 2014 at 23:59

Well said Hugh, but I think you might be wrong about house sizes. 70m2 only equals the ground floor area of an unremarkable house such as this one on Hewitt. If it's ok to convert Ladder houses like this which are over 120m2 then that would take in whole streets, which would make their inclusion in the Restricted Conversion Area nonsensical

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 19, 2014 at 0:50

You're right Alexander, I'm definitely wrong. Funnily enough I looked at that same house to get my 70 Sq m, but with my remarkable attention to detail, scanned it quickly and picked up on the figure top centre - which as you rightly say is one floor only.

So what this means is that the 120 sq m test is nonsense since it includes probably every single house in the Ladder. Therefore I think it's fair for us to conclude that the size test cannot have ever been meant to apply to the the Ladder 'no-conversion' zone.

This means that the officer had absolutely no grounds to approve either the Wightman or the Woollaston house. So, kinda my point. These officers are making decisions by ineptly interpreting policy and dangerously developing their own policy on the hoof.

Councillors, Council, this makes a nonsense of planning policy and further damages our already strained confidence in the Council's ability to manage or enforce its planning policy and really must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

We have elections coming up in May. This (let's be charitable) lack of clarity ought to be an election issue (or let's be honest and call it ineptness).

Permalink Reply by Alexander Smith on February 18, 2014 at 14:43

Officers have been using the "would not result in the loss of a small family house" argument to get round restricted conversion rules for some time (along with other excuses). But according to another rule, the smaller properties (under 120m2 not including post-1948 extensions) are protected anyway as they’re not deemed fit for conversion  - whether in a restricted conversion area or not - so, surely, one purpose of restricted conversion areas was actually to maintain the stock of larger properties. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page