# 33 Sherwood Road, Seaford (house to two flats)

- **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nicola Davies
- **Authority:** Lewes (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009869
- **Application reference:** LW/26/0064
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from a single family dwelling to two self-contained flats
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3
- **Development plan policies:** Lewes Local Plan Part 1 CP11, DM20
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers
- **Tags:** tier-2, flat-conversion, living-conditions, limited-nppf-engagement, small-scheme

## Summary
Conversion of a house in Seaford into two flats was allowed. The Council said both flats were undersized if judged by how many people their rooms could hold. The inspector judged them as shown on the plans, found that each met the national space standard for its stated occupancy, and found the garden adequate. The Framework is engaged only in passing.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision" (DL ¶2).
- **Space standards.** "As a result, I cannot conclude that the internal space within Unit 1 would fall short of the NDSS for a one bed, one person dwelling" (DL ¶5).
- **Framework.** Compliance with the local policies "accords with the revised Framework that seeks to achieve well-designed places" (DL ¶8).
- **Conditions.** "Conditions relating to these matters would be overly onerous in this case" (DL ¶16).

## What made the difference
The plans. Unit sizes were tested against the occupancy the drawings showed, not the larger occupancy the Council thought possible, and the approved-plans condition was treated as enough to hold the layout.

## Policy findings
- **DP3: accord.** mapped: no Framework policy named for the main issue; compliance with CP11 and DM20 said to accord with the revised Framework's aim of well-designed places (DL 8)
- **DM6: pass.** Council's conditions tested against DM6 and the Planning Practice Guidance; conditions controlling room use and the garden rejected as overly onerous because the approved plans already fix them (DL 14-16)

## Key facts
- No local space standard, so the nationally described space standard was used; Unit 1 meets the one-person standard and Unit 2 the one-bedroom, two-person standard (DL 4-6)
- The Council argued the units should be assessed as two-person and four-person dwellings because of room sizes; rejected for lack of evidence and because the plans show two living rooms (DL 5-6)
- Works to divide the property into three units were reported but were not before the inspector; a condition limits the permission to two units (DL 9, 15)
- Parking accepted by the Council at up to 1.65 spaces per flat (DL 10)
- Switch paragraph says regard was had to the revised Framework; it does not say whether the parties were consulted (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009869

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009869.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.