Appeal 3302947

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/2021/02819 for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) into a House in [name] (HMO) ([name]) (7 persons) (Alternative to DC/2021/02343 refused 26/11/21) at [site address] , Seaforth [postcode] , granted on 21 February 2022 by Sefton Council, is varied by deleting condition 6, and deleting conditions 1 and 2, and substituting them for the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. 100 rev A Existing Location Plan, [name]. 103 rev [name], and [name]. 104 rev A Proposed Site Plan

An application for costs was made by [name] against Sefton Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Planning permission was granted in February 2022 for the change of use of [site address] into a 7-person house of multiple occupation (HMO). However, this was subject to planning conditions (1 and 2) which restrict the permission to a temporary period of 2 years. The Council state that this is to monitor the potential impacts of the proposal on neighbouring residents.

The appeal seeks to vary these conditions so that the HMO use can be operated on a permanent basis. The main issue is therefore whether the conditions are reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, anti-social behaviour and refuse storage.

Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should only be imposed when they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that circumstances where a temporary permission may be appropriate include where a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area or where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period.

The Council consider a temporary consent to be necessary to monitor matters relating to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and refuse storage. However, condition 4 already requires details of bin storage to be provided in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, the Council’s environmental health team has not raised any objection to the proposal on noise and environmental grounds, subject to condition 5, which requires that a scheme of sound insulation be submitted for the Local Planning Authority’s approval. I am satisfied that these conditions would provide effective mitigation and control of these matters.

Moreover, the PPG also advises that conditions which place unjustifiable and disproportionate financial burdens on an applicant will fail the test of reasonableness. To my mind the financial burden for the proposed works without the assurance of a permanent permission is unreasonable.

There is also no firm evidence that occurrences of anti-social behaviour and crime, which are ultimately a matter for the relevant authorities in specific instances, would be attributed to future occupants of the property at issue or multi-occupied properties in general. In any event, there are remedies available via separate regimes to certain matters, such as through landlord obligations and HMO licensing. Much is therefore reliant on effective management, which lies outside of planning.

As such, condition 6, which requires the submission and approval of a management plan, to detail how these impacts would be minimised is not necessary. Whilst this condition has not been disputed by the appellant, I have the power under s79 of the Act to delete a non-disputed condition and consider it reasonable and necessary to do so in this instance.

For the reasons above. conditions 1 and 2 in their current form, are also not reasonable or necessary and are required to be removed and replaced by conditions that do not restrict the permission to a temporary timeframe. This would not, in my view, conflict with Policies HC3, HC4 and EQ2 of A Local Plan for Sefton 2017 which seek, amongst other things, to protect amenity and ensure that the living conditions for either the occupiers of the property or for neighbouring properties are not significantly harmed.

I recognise that the proposal would result in the loss of a family house. However, based on Council data about the very limited number of HMOs within a 50 metre radius of the appeal site, planning officers reached the view that the proposal would not cause an overconcentration of HMOs locally. I have no substantive reason to question these findings or conclude that it would adversely affect the balance or mix of housing in the area.

[name] have noted arguments regarding highways, the Council’s highway authority has not raised any objections in regard to transportation or the availability of parking, and I am satisfied that the number of vehicle movements would not result in any congestion or highway safety risk.

I have also had regard to the representations made regarding the condition of the appeal property, the increased pressure on local services, insufficient water pressure, the amount of communal space for future residents, and whether the means of escape from fire would be suitable. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the standard of accommodation would be unacceptable or to support the claims made. It is also a well-founded principle that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as value of land or property.

Comments from local residents in respect of their anxiety and distress are also acknowledged. However, I have reasoned above, with reference to planning considerations in terms of the public interest, that the proposal would not have unacceptable effects.

I therefore find that conditions 1, 2 and 6 are not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, anti-social behaviour and refuse storage. I shall therefore allow the appeal and vary the original permission by deleting condition 6, and deleting and replacing conditions 1 and 2 with conditions that include the statutory time limit and omit reference to a temporary period.