Appeal 6000373

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 and [address], with regard to noise and disturbance; and • the highway network, with regard to parking provision.

At present, the dwelling has three bedrooms. The scheme seeks permission for eight bedrooms and therefore has the potential to accommodate eight unrelated individuals. The occupants would have differing independent lives and living, working and social patterns, with comings and goings at different times of the day and night. The use of the property as a House in [name] (HMO) would therefore generate more activity, and thus noise and disturbance, than its use as a conventional single-family dwelling as people would be living independently.

The site is located within a predominately residential area and forms one of a pair of semi-detached properties. The evidence suggests that the area comprises mainly of single-family dwellings and flats. The frequency and nature of the activities associated with use as an HMO would result in undue noise and disturbance which would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Any noise or disturbance would be particularly evident to neighbouring occupants at [address], given the properties form a semi-detached pair. It would also be readily apparent to occupiers at [address], given the proximity of the appeal site to this property.

Each room would be self-contained, which may reduce movement and therefore noise from within the house to some extent. I also acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to provide modern insulation and suggestion of a planning condition to ensure sound insulation in walls. However, these measures would only reduce noise from within the property, rather than external noise and disturbance from additional comings and goings in and out of the property as occupiers go about their daily lives.

The appellants assertion that it would not result in harm through additional noise and disturbance is not supported by a noise assessment or any empirical evidence. It is argued that the Council’s assessment is speculative and not based on evidence. However, for the reasons outlined above, these are reasonable assumptions to make.

I am not satisfied that the various measures set out in the HMO management plan, such as designated quiet hours and a complaints log, would sufficiently mitigate any additional noise and disturbance, as they would not sufficiently address or control the additional comings and goings from the property. The lack of comment from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is a neutral consideration and does not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other approved planning applications, outlining how these decisions demonstrate that any perceived harm could be managed via planning conditions. Although the property 18 Bowmead (Ref: 24/1281/F) is paired with [address], there are considerable separation distances between it and other properties along [address]. This contrasts with the appeal property which sits in close proximity to a number of other dwellings, and therefore any additional noise and disturbance would be readily discernible to occupiers of various properties.

The property at [address] (Ref: 23/3887/F) is situated off a relatively busy road, close to a large junction. Given this, background noise may be somewhat expected. This contrasts to the appeal property, which is situated in a relatively tight knit residential street where any additional noise and disturbance would be readily apparent to neighbouring occupiers. Regarding [address] (Ref: 25/0700/F), this property appears to be located next to a large block of flats, with numerous balconies adjacent to the property. The block of flats would likely result in increased comings and goings in comparison to a single-family dwelling, and there would be some noise apparent from the balconies. Given this, I am not satisfied that the circumstances between this property and the appeal scheme are directly comparable.

In any instance, each case is determined on its own merits. Whilst consistency is important in decision making, as illustrated by case law and the Planning Practice Guidance, the fact that other HMOs have been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. As outlined, I am not satisfied that the circumstances between the schemes put forward by the appellant, and the appeal scheme are directly comparable.

I am not satisfied that a planning condition to limit occupancy would meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. In any case, even if occupancy was restricted to eight individuals, for the reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied that this would prevent any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by way of noise and disturbance.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 and [address], with regard to noise and disturbance. This would be contrary to Policy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) (RGLP) and Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). When read together, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development prevents or mitigates the impacts of noise.

The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 1b (where 0 is the worst and 6b is the best). Most properties along [address] benefit from a garage and off-road car parking. The area is not subject to any parking restrictions and on my mid-afternoon site visit there were ample on street parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time but given the residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative.

My attention has not been drawn to any specific parking standards for HMOs. The Council’s highway consultation response outlines how preliminary information from 2021 census data, supported by research by the Department of Communities and Local Government, indicates that car ownership reduces from privately owned accommodation to rented properties. On this basis, the response outlines how the scheme would generate parking demand for three cars.

Considering this parking demand, as the scheme would provide one off street parking space, two cars would have to park on the street. Based on the evidence before me and from what I saw on my site visit, I am satisfied that these spaces could be accommodated on the street, without resulting in unacceptable levels of parking stress or demand. Given this, a parking survey would not be necessary.

The Council outline how eight occupants, and therefore presumably eight cars, would have to permanently find parking availability on the street. However, there is limited empirical evidence before me to demonstrate that all members of the property would own a car. Furthermore, the evidence provided indicates that the scheme would only generate on street parking demand for two cars.

Additionally, despite its PTAL rating, the property is located in close proximity to a bus stop on [address], which is served regularly by two bus routes. Given the proximity of the stop, and frequency of buses, this would likely provide an alternative to travel by private car for some residents, further reducing the need for car ownership and therefore additional demand for on street parking.

The Council has drawn my attention to a planning application (24/3752/F), outlining how this site has a higher PTAL than the appeal property, and a parking survey was requested. This site is however a fairly significant distance away from the appeal scheme. I am therefore not satisfied that the circumstances regarding parking are directly comparable. I have afforded this point limited weight in favour of the Council’s position.

Given the above, I am satisfied that the scheme would have an acceptable impact on the highway network, with regard to parking provision. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy IM4 and IM(c) of the RGLP and Policies T2 and T4 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure appropriate car parking provision and encourage sustainable transport.

Whilst the planning officer did initially recommend approval of the application, this does not render the subsequent refusal unjustified. It is not uncommon for a Planning Committee to come to a different conclusion with respect to the planning merits of a case. The Council has set out its reasoning for the decision in its statement of case.

I am not satisfied that the conditions suggested by the Council, including implementation of cycle and refuse storage, removal of permitted development rights and the use of matching materials, would overcome the harm relating to additional noise and disturbance.

The scheme may meet housing needs, ensure efficient use of land and provide affordable accommodation in a somewhat accessible location. I acknowledge that there may be people in the area without a home. These considerations however do not outweigh the harm identified above.

The scheme would ensure an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers and would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s waste officer also raised no objection to the scheme. The property would comply with fire safety regulations and be licensed in accordance with the Council’s requirements, as outlined in the submitted HMO management plan. The site is not located in a conservation area and is within a flood zone 1. These points are however neutral considerations and do not weigh in favour of, nor against the appeal.

The proposal is acceptable with regards to its effect on the highway network and parking provision. It would however result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 and [address] of noise and disturbance.

It would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and the appeal should be dismissed.