Appeal 6000230

The appeal is dismissed.

There is a separate appeal under section 195 of the Act against the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development. My decision relates only to the appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission under section 78 of the Act.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the Borough’s stock of family housing; • whether the proposal provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers, with particular regard to internal space provision; and • the effect of the proposed use on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy 8 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (LP) recognises that houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) can make a valuable contribution to the private rented sector by catering for the housing needs of specific groups, but that is to be balanced with the potential harm that can arise. As such, the Council supports applications for HMOs where certain criteria are met.

Criterion (i) of Policy 8 indicates that the overall size of the original property to be converted should not be less than 120sqm. The supporting text outlines that the Council’s policies seek to deliver appropriate residential conversions whilst maintaining a supply of family housing. It states that the [name] identified a need for three bedroom properties in the borough, meaning the conversion of small family homes to HMOs would have a particularly negative impact on the supply of family housing.

The appeal site comprises a bungalow with a rear dormer and ground floor extensions. The Council indicates that the property excluding the extensions has a gross internal floor area of around 72.14sqm. The appellant states that the floor area is around 122sqm when including the extensions. However, criterion (i) refers to the original property and clearly the floor space of the ground floor and dormer extensions should not be included as they are evidently additions to the original property. Thus, the proposal conflicts with this part of LP Policy 8.

The appellant refers to an appeal decision in the London Borough of Haringey1 where the Inspector found that the conversion of a dwelling to a HMO would be acceptable in respect of the relevant development plan policies. Whilst a similar policy applies in that area, that proposal involved the change of use of a larger property than the current scheme before me.

In this case, the enlarged property only just exceeds 120sqm and, in any event, it lies in an area where the evidence indicates a need to retain a supply of small family dwellings. Whilst Policy H9 of the London Plan 2021 promotes the efficient use of existing housing stock and recognises the role of HMOs in meeting local and strategic housing needs, the proposed use results in the unacceptable loss of a small family home.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development has a harmful effect on the Borough’s stock of family housing, contrary to Policy 8 of the LP where it seeks to protect the supply of small family homes.

Policy 8 of the LP outlines that proposals for HMOs should meet the requirements of the East London HMO Guidance (HMO Guidance). This has been adopted by the Council and includes minimum living space standards.

The number of occupants and beds is not included on the application form or plans. The appellant states that the HMO is for occupation by six people whereas the Council states that four of the six bedrooms could provide space for double beds thereby accommodating up to ten residents. At my site visit, I observed double beds in every bedroom. The appellant indicates that similar to the Haringey decision, a condition could be imposed restricting the maximum number of people occupying the property at any one time, in this case six.

The HMO Guidance outlines that the kitchen should be 9.5sqm for six residents to enable safe food preparation by the number of occupiers but does not refer to the provision of dining facilities within this space. It states that a landlord may provide a communal living room in addition to any space that is required for shared kitchen and dining facilities. If dining facilities are combined with the living room, the room should be at least 14sqm for three people, plus 1sqm for every additional person. Using these figures, there is a need for 9.5sqm of kitchen space plus 17sqm dining/living space, totalling 26.5sqm communal space for six residents. 1 APP/Y5420/C/23/3315563 ‘the Haringey decision’

The property includes a kitchen and adjoining conservatory providing the only communal living area, amounting to 22sqm. At my site visit, I observed that the kitchen has a dining table against a wall on one side and a conservatory window on another, with three chairs and two foldable chairs. The adjoining conservatory includes three fridge freezers, a microwave and a two-seater sofa. Together, the kitchen and conservatory provide sufficient kitchen space and are positioned close enough to individual rooms to meet the requirements in the HMO Guidance.

However, there is no separate living room and the kitchen equipment in the conservatory significantly restricts the space available for lounging furniture. Further, due to its position, there is limited room for residents to sit around the dining table. I acknowledge that there is a HMO licence for occupation of the property by a maximum of six people. However, due to the small size of the kitchen and conservatory, the scheme provides insufficient usable communal space, resulting in a poor quality living environment for occupants of the property.

There is no dispute that the proposal meets the standards for sleeping accommodation and ablution facilities in the HMO Guidance. Nevertheless, this does not overcome the need for adequate communal space.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal provides unacceptable living conditions for occupiers, with particular regard to internal space provision. This is contrary to Policy 8 of the LP where it sets out the standards required for HMOs.

The semi-detached appeal property adjoins a dwelling at [address] in a predominantly residential area on a busy through road. The space in front of the building provides a hardsurfaced parking area. Immediately adjacent to this is a private residential access road, beyond which are the grounds of a junior school.

The application form indicates the provision of five parking spaces, but this is difficult to achieve given the position of a tree on the adjacent road verge, the location of the road crossover and the need to park in tandem. Nevertheless, the proposed use results in comings and goings to and from the property by vehicles and on foot.

However, the occupation of the property by six people is equivalent to a large family and, in the absence of the Article 4 direction2, the change of use of houses to this sized HMO would be permitted development under the GPDO. There is already significant background activity from traffic along the road and from use of the nearby school. Further, the property is already operating as a HMO and there have been no objections from neighbouring residents. Given these factors, activity associated with the proposed use does not cause undue disturbance to occupants of dwellings nearby.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal does not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. This complies with Policies 7 and 8 of the LP where they seek to protect the amenity of existing residents, including ensuring that HMOs do not give rise to significantly greater levels of noise and disturbance than an equivalent sized single family dwelling. 2 Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO)

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.