Appeal 3332879

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/0816/23, for the conversion of a dwelling into two flats (1 x 3 bed) and (1 x 2 bed); single and two storey side extension; single and two storey rear extension; front porch; alterations to roof; rear dormer; rooflights in front and side roofslopes; landscaping; external alterations (demolition of porch and detached garage) at [site address] granted on 11 May 2023 by Harrow Council, is varied by deleting condition No 10.

An application for costs was made by Mean3 UK Limited against Harrow Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’) permits changes of use from dwellinghouses (Class C3) to small Houses in [name] (Class C4) (‘HMO’) and vice versa.

Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) states that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions. It continues at paragraph 56 that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum, and that they should only be imposed where 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’) on the Use of Planning Conditions advises at ID: 21a-[phone] that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity; and that area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission are unlikely to meet those tests.

The Council’s delegated application report (‘DR’) does not explain why condition No 10 was imposed and, unlike many of the other conditions, the reason given for this condition in its decision notice (‘DN’) does not make reference to the development plan. I have therefore framed the main issues in this appeal having regard to the reason for the condition as set out in the DN, and I have dealt with additional issues raised in its appeal statement as other matters.

The main issues are whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of: • The character of the area, and maintaining mixed, balanced, sustainable and inclusive communities; and • ensuring appropriate living conditions for nearby occupiers and appropriate living conditions for the occupants of the proposed accommodation.

The host forms one half of a semi-detached pair, which is located in a residential area of Harrow. I have no information to indicate how residential properties in the area are occupied, including the number or location of any existing HMOs. Consequently, there is nothing before me to indicate that there is a particularly high concentration of HMOs in [address] or adjacent roads, or that the creation of HMOs in this property could disrupt the balance of the community.

The Council asserts that the occupation of this property as two HMOs instead of two flats could result in a significant intensification in its use, as rather than comprising two households, there could be up to twelve, with different functionality and character impacts.

The permitted scheme involves the creation of a two bedroom flat and a three bedroom flat. Having regard to Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (‘LP’) and Policy DM26 of the Harrow Development Management Policies 2013 (‘HDMP’), the floor area of each bedroom would be sufficient to provide two bed spaces.

On that basis, even if the property was to be occupied as two HMOs instead of two flats, the maximum occupancy level would be broadly similar. HMOs are also characterised by occupants who share various amenities, such as kitchen and bathroom facilities. Consequently, I am not persuaded that there would be substantially different refuse and servicing requirements associated with the use of the property as HMOs compared to its use as flats. The approved plans depict two triple bins stores to the front, and for the above reasons, I have no cogent evidence that they would be insufficient for two HMOs, or that such a use would harm the streetscene.

At paragraphs 3.7 to 3.12 of its appeal statement, the Council refers to [name] 2012 (‘HCS’) Policy CS 1B and HDMP Policy DM 1, but acknowledges that, whilst they address a range of planning considerations, they do not refer specifically to small HMOs. Amongst other things, and in general terms, those policies do however require development to respond positively to its context, and to avoid detriment to the area’s character and appearance having regard to matters including servicing and arrangements for waste and recycling.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character of the area, or to maintain a balanced community, and its deletion would not result in a conflict with those policies. Moreover, the use of the property as HMOs would help to address the Framework’s stance regarding the need to provide housing for different groups in the community.

There could be some additional comings and goings as a result of the generally more independent living arrangements by the occupants of HMOs compared to flats. However, having regard to the advice in the PPG, the Framework’s stance on conditions, and the similar number of potential occupants compared to two flats, I have no persuasive evidence before me to indicate why the particular circumstances at this property in this locality are such that its use as HMOs would harm adjacent occupiers’ living conditions; nor, why it would result in inappropriate living conditions within the property.

The disputed condition is not therefore reasonable or necessary in the interests of ensuring appropriate living conditions. Its deletion would not therefore conflict with those parts of LP Policy D3 and HDMP Policy DM 1 [name] and D, which require development proposals to deliver appropriate privacy and amenity, and comfortable and inviting environments, and which resist proposals that would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers, or which would fail to achieve satisfactory privacy and amenity for the future occupiers of proposed development.

The Council states in its DR that the disputed condition is necessary given the potential impacts from the property’s use as two HMOs on parking, transport and highways, but does not elaborate on what those impacts could be.

For my part, I note that the scheme includes off-road parking space to the front and bicycle stores to the rear, and the property is accessible on foot or by bicycle to the nearby facilities and underground station at [address]. In its DR the Council indicates that the location has good/very good access to public transport. For those reasons, and given my conclusions regarding the occupancy of the property as two HMOs compared to two flats, I am satisfied that the disputed condition is not necessary in the interests of the safety or convenience of highway users.

Finally, both principal parties have cited appeal decisions elsewhere in the borough. In some of those decisions a condition was imposed removing permitted development rights for a change of use from Class C3 to Class C4 of the GPDO, and in others it was not. However, I do not know the full context and details of all those cases, and I have dealt with the proposal before me at this property and in this location, based on the submitted evidence, and on its planning merits.

Having regard to the Framework and the PPG, the disputed condition does not meet the tests of reasonableness or necessity, and the development without it would not result in harm to the character of the area, lead to an unbalanced community, or result in inappropriate living conditions.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed and I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.