Appeal 6000631

The appeal is allowed, and permission is granted for change of use from 3- bedroom dwelling (Class C3) to 6-bedroom HMO (C4) at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the planning application Ref 25/01695/FUL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

The description of development above accords with that on the decision notice but differs from that on the application form. This reflects changes that were made to the scheme during the course of the planning application to omit a previously proposed front and side extension and reduce the number of proposed bedrooms from 7 to 6.

The Council’s decision notice and its suggested ‘[name] condition refer to ‘[name] 12 June 2025 [name] and [name]. The Council has since confirmed that there was a typing error, and that the correct drawing is ‘[name]. This is the existing and proposed elevations drawing that formed part of the appeal submissions and upon which I have based my decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, having particular regard to internal living space; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to privacy and noise impacts.

The appeal property is a two-storey, 3-bedroomed semi-detached house located on the south side of [address] within an established residential area within the western part of the city. The lawful planning use of the property is as a Class C3 dwellinghouse.

The appeal scheme is for the use of the property as a small HMO with 6 single-occupancy rooms spread over the ground and first floors with a shared bathroom provided on each floor. An open plan communal kitchen, dining and living area would be located on the ground floor. There would also be shared access to an enclosed garden at the rear of the building.

Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (UCO) provides for the use of a dwelling house as a HMO by not more than 6 residents; that is, up to 6 unrelated individuals who share basic amenities.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO) grants planning permission under Class L for a change of use from Use Class C3 (use as a dwelling house for up to 6 people living as a single household) to Use Class C4. However, the Council has put in force a Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (TCPA), that removes this permitted development right within the area where the appeal property is located.

The Council has adopted a Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (January 2022) (the [name]) which sets out criteria for assessing planning applications for new HMOs, with the aim of encouraging a sustainable community in Bath and the wider area by encouraging an appropriately balanced housing mix supporting a wide variety of households in all areas.

The HMO SPD was adopted, following public consultation, to support Policy H2: Houses in [name] of the Bath and [name] (BaNES) Local Plan Partial Update (2023) (the LPPU). As such, I afford significant weight to the [name] in my decision.

All six proposed single-occupancy bedrooms would have a full ceiling height floor area which exceeds 7 sqm, thereby meeting the minimum room size requirement of 6.51 sqm of the [name]. The proposed ground floor communal area comprising 23.3 sqm floor space would also exceed the 20 sqm requirement for 6 residents within the [name].

The Council’s appeal statement refers to 3 of the proposed bedrooms falling short of the [name] (NDSS). These standards can be applied to residential conversions. However, they are not automatically mandatory, and Councils have discretion on how to apply them.

The NDSS standards have not been incorporated into LPPU Policy H2 or the [name], which are the relevant policies for the consideration of this appeal. Also, the [name] bedroom and communal living space minimum room size standards accord with those of the Council’s standards for licensed Houses in [name] under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. As such, I find the Council’s adopted room size requirements to be the appropriate assessment tool for the consideration of the appeal scheme.

Moreover, I saw during my visit to the site that each bedroom would provide a reasonable standard of accommodation in respect of light and ventilation having regard to the window provision in each. Future occupiers would also have use of the communal living area, which, notwithstanding the seating shown on the proposed floor plan drawing, would be of sufficient size and layout to comfortably accommodate 6 persons, having regard to the [name] standards. In this respect, it is reasonable to assume that not all residents would be using the kitchen, living and dining facilities at the same time. Occupants would also benefit from the rear garden as an area of living space in addition to their bedroom and internal communal living area.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to internal living space provision. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy D6 of the BaNES Placemaking Plan (July 2017) (the PP), LPPU Policy H2 and the [name], in so much as these policies and guidance seek to ensure that new development provides for adequate and usable private or community amenity space and that HMOs provide a good standard of accommodation for occupiers.

This accords with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) in so much that it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The Council has not referenced LPPU Policy H2 in its reason for refusal. However, it is referred to in other appeal submissions by both main parties, and in so far as it specifically relates to proposals for Houses in [name], I find that it is a material consideration in my determination of this appeal.

No. [address] is a semi-detached two-storey house which is positioned at a roughly 45-degree angle to the appeal property. It lies within a set-back position in a triangular shaped plot, so that most of its external living space is sited to the side and front of the dwelling. The rear of the building is sited close to the side boundary of the appeal site.

No.8 is positioned in an elevated position in relation to the part of the rear garden of the appeal site which is closest to the rear of the building. I observed during my site visit that there is a glazed conservatory to the rear of that property and an outdoor patio area next to the appeal site, both of which appear to be well-used areas of living space and are visible from the rear garden of the appeal site, due to the low height of the intervening boundary fence.

The attached single garage of the appeal property which is proposed to be converted into living accommodation abuts the site boundary with No.[address] to the aforesaid neighbour patio and conservatory.

Additional windows would be inserted into the front and rear elevations. The front bedroom window would directly face the road frontage of the site and the rear window, which would serve a bathroom, is proposed to be obscure glazed, having regard to the use of the room. No additional windows are proposed in the side elevation of the single storey element nor at first floor level within the existing building, where existing windows would continue to serve rooms with the same functions as existing ie bedrooms, a bathroom and a landing. As such, I find that there would be no overlooking of No.8 arising from the proposed fenestration in connection with the appeal scheme.

The Council is concerned that the introduction of an additional door within the rear elevation of the single storey part of the appeal property would lead to increased residential activity within the rear garden of the appeal site near the boundary with No.8 where there is already a degree of intervisibility between the two properties, thereby resulting in increased overlooking to that property.

I saw during my site visit that a rear garage door already exists and there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that it has only recently been installed. As such, I am not persuaded that this door would result in material harm to the privacy of No.8.

Having regard to the matter of additional noise, the proposed use of the existing garage as a bedroom and bathroom, having regard to the siting and design of the proposed fenestration, would not in itself give rise to materially harmful noise impacts upon No.8.

The appeal scheme would mean that direct access from the property into its rear garden would be via a door which is closer to No.8 than existing. However, within the context of the size of the rear garden and its position in relation to No.8 the rear access door would not be so much closer that it would make a material difference to the how occupiers of the property access and congregate/make use of the rear garden.

Moreover, the proposed Class C4 HMO use would accommodate a maximum of 6 residents. I am not persuaded that such occupation would result in such an increase in noise levels that would be significantly greater than those associated with the existing lawful use as a dwellinghouse.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy and noise impacts. The appeal scheme therefore accords with PP Policy D6 and LPPU Policy H2 in so much as these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development and HMO proposals do not significantly harm the living conditions of existing residents, including through a loss of privacy or noise intrusion.

This accords with paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much that it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I have had regard to third-party concerns in respect of over-saturation of HMOs within the area, and an associated loss of family homes to HMO use. The LPA Committee Report confirms how the proposal accords with the concentration criterion of the council’s adopted [name] which sets a 10% threshold for the number of HMOs within a 100m radius of the site to encourage an appropriately balanced housing mix, supporting a wide variety of households in all areas. On this basis, I am satisfied that this matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

I have taken account of neighbour concerns in respect of traffic and carparking. The Council has raised no objection in this regard. The proposal includes the provision of a new on-site parking space at the front of the building, which would result in 2 spaces for the resulting 6 bedroomed property. This complies with the Council’s adopted maximum parking space standards. As such and having regard to the availability of on-street parking in the road and the accessible location of the site in relation to facilities and services and public transport connections, I am satisfied that this matter does not constitute a reason for dismissing the appeal.

I have noted third-party concerns about antisocial behaviour and littering. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that it is likely that these matters would arise as a result of the proposed HMO use of the property.

In respect of third-party concerns regarding an overload on infrastructure arising from the development, this matter is dealt with by means of the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) requirements.

Some other matters raised by third parties, including the driving up of property prices in the area and profit motivation for the scheme, are not determining factors in the consideration of this appeal.

The Council has suggested conditions if the appeal is allowed. I have considered these in the light of the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and imposed them where I consider them to be necessary and reasonable. Where necessary, I have altered them in the interests of clarity and precision.

In addition to the standard implementation condition (1), it is necessary to define the plans for certainty (2). A condition requiring the provision of secure cycle storage (3) is necessary to encourage the use of alternative means of transport to the private car and to comply with LPPU Policy ST7.

In the interests of energy efficiency and adaptability to climate change, and to accord with [name] H2 and CP1, a condition is necessary to ensure that the proposal achieves an [name] (EPC) rating of at least “C” (4).

In the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of the site and neighbouring occupiers, in accordance with PP Policy D6, a condition is justified to ensure the provision of adequate refuse storage facilities (5).

The development accords with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 03 A EX/PRO rev C, 02 A EX/PRO rev B and 01 A EXPRO rev C.

Prior to first occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation within Class C4, secure and weatherproof bicycle storage provision for a minimum of 4 bicycles shall be provided at the site, in accordance with details which have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved bicycle storage facilities shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of bicycles.

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation within Class C4, an EPC showing that the property has an EPC rating of C, B or A shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation within Class C4, refuse and recyclable waste storage facilities shall be provided at the site in accordance with details that have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved waste storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for the continued use by the occupants. ***End of Conditions***