Appeal 3274797

The appeal is dismissed.

I note the previous dismissed appeal for this address, reference APP/D1780/W/20/3251428. This includes an assessment of neighbour living conditions as a result of noise and disturbance from the proposal for a 7-bed House of [name] (HMO). This appeal relates to an approved planning application for a 6-bedroom HMO. Due to the similarities the previous appeal is relevant and a material consideration.

The appeal is against the imposition of Condition 5 only, which relates to the requirement for the appellant to install party wall sound proofing insulation and provide evidence of its completed installation. It is apparent that this condition was primarily to protect the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining neighbouring house at No [address].

The main issue is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable to protect the living conditions of the occupier of No [address].

The approved planning application results in permission for the dwelling to be used as a 6-bedroom HMO. As set out with the previous appeal, a conversion of a single dwelling house to a HMO would likely give rise to a level of general noise and disturbance, due to the intensity of residential use, that would be disruptive, particularly to the occupiers of [address] and their living conditions. This would be the case even with this being for a 6 rather than 7- bedroom HMO. This is because the level of activity would be more intensive than that which would be expected if associated with a single house, even if occupied by a larger intergenerational family, for example.

Indeed, to address the issue the approved plan submitted by the appellant shows 30mm ‘[name] panels “to reduce sound transmission”. This is not shown on the plans to be included only if sound testing from within No 25 shows it as being necessary.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the thickness of the walls and there not being a formal noise complaint, but I also recognise that the neighbour has claimed that noise has already been a significant issue for them, and I have no reason to consider their comments as false or exaggerated in these circumstances. It may be that the current occupants are not particularly noisy, but this may not always be the case. Furthermore, the fact that there would be six bedrooms occupied in the HMO, who are likely to lead relatively independent lives, means that the increase in activity generally would make the sound proofing necessary.

From the evidence before me I conclude that the party wall sound proofing insulation is reasonably necessary to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 25 to an acceptable level. As such, condition 5 as set out above meets with the five tests of the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 56, being necessary to safeguard acceptable levels of living conditions for the occupiers of No 25. The cost and inconvenience of the sound proofing is recognised, but this is not sufficient reason in these circumstances to delete the condition.

The condition in dispute therefore meets the tests set out in the Framework and is also necessary to make the development acceptable, in accordance with policies such as Saved Policy SDP1, which requires that new developments do not unacceptably affect the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens, amongst other things.

I recognise that the appellant may not be in compliance with the condition with regards the timings for the required installation of sound proofing, but this is for the appellant to discuss with the Council as to a way forward on this matter.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.