Appeal 6000700

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a C3 residential property to a C4 house in multiple occupation (HMO) and roof alterations at [site address] [address], Halesowen, Dudley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/1314, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied by more than five persons at any one time.

Unless within three months of the date of this decision a scheme for cycle storage and waste / recycling bins storage provision within the site, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within three months of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the site as a House in [name] shall cease until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be retained as such at all times in the future.

In the banner heading above and my formal decision, I have used the description of development taken from the Council’s decision notice, as opposed to the application form, as it more accurately describes that for which permission is sought. However, I have excluded superfluous information that is not an act of development. I have also had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application and appeal forms.

I have assessed the appeal scheme based on the plans before me, but I observed at the time of the site visit that the roof alterations were completed, and the building is occupied as a five-bedroom House in [name] (HMO). I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, • whether or not the development provides satisfactory living conditions for the occupants, with regard to the provision of internal space for bedrooms one and two; and • the effect of the development on highway safety, with regard to parking.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a residential area. The street scene and surrounding area includes a mix of different house types, ranging from traditional semi-detached dwellings with hipped roofs to three storey flat roof buildings and bungalows with pitched roofs. A neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses have a pitched roof with side gables also.

The hip-to gable extension alters the form and appearance of the original roof and is a contrast to the hipped roof of the adjoining property. However, from the front it has a modest form and owing to the varied roofscape of adjacent houses, the hip-to gable extension is not a stark alteration to the building. Indeed, the appearance of the extension is a relatively subtle addition to the roof, constructed with appropriate external materials. In these circumstances and within the context of the varied roofscape locally, the hip-to gable extension does not unacceptably harm the character or appearance of the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the street scene does not have a uniform character and located in a row of six properties that are tightly spaced together, two of which have a gable roof pitch and are also set noticeably forward of the appeal property, the extension is inconspicuous. As a consequence, and notwithstanding that there would be some minor visual harm to the appearance of the pair of dwellings, the appeal scheme is not wholly out of character with other properties along the road.

Although the sizeable flat roof dormer extension on the rear is not subservient, the appropriate facing materials soften its visual appearance. Likewise, and for similar reasons to those set out above, even though it is visible from neighbouring gardens, it is viewed within the context of the mix of roof types nearby, including other extensions and roof alterations. Also, views from nearby streets are limited. Indeed, views are interrupted by existing buildings, boundary treatments, as well as vegetation within rear gardens. Therefore, notwithstanding the guidance of the Council's Residential Design Guide1, the rear dormer extension is not a prominent addition or visually harmful to the host building or the surrounding area.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development does not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Therefore, the development does not conflict with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (the BCCS), and Policies L1 and S6 of 1 Dudley Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document May 2023 the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 (the DS), which together, amongst other things, seek to ensure high quality design which protects local distinctiveness and the character and appearance of the area.

The property has five bedrooms, each with an en-suite bathroom. The bedrooms are split over the ground floor, first floor and within the roof space. A communal kitchen is located on the ground floor, with a private, enclosed garden to the rear.

Bedroom one and bedroom two are located on the ground floor and have a floor area of 11.15m2 and 12.71m2 respectively. The floor area calculations include the en-suite for each room. Each en-suite is small measuring 2.1m by 0.9m, which is below the guidance of 1.9m by 1.7m, set out in the Council’s HMO Standards 2022 (the [name]).

Although each en-suite is a tight space, they include a shower, w/c and basin, with sufficient space to allow the facilities to be used by the occupant of the bedrooms. Each bedroom is a comfortable space, and the accommodation is completed to a high standard. As such, I am satisfied that even though the two ground floor bedrooms do not fully comply with the [name] or the Council's Residential Design Guide, the accommodation offers a good standard of amenity for the occupants.

A condition which restricts the occupation of the building to no more than five people is reasonable and necessary to ensure that an appropriate standard of living conditions is maintained for the occupants, thus avoiding the prospect of overcrowding.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development provides satisfactory living conditions for the occupants, with regard to the provision of internal space for bedrooms one and two. Accordingly, the development would not conflict with Policy L1 of the DS, which amongst other things, seeks an appropriate level of amenity for the occupants of a development.

The frontage parking area is large enough for two vehicles to park comfortably. Many neighbouring properties have frontage parking areas, and I observed during my site visit, on a weekday morning, that parking on the road and on nearby streets was not commonplace. Whilst this was only a snapshot in time, there was a good level of on street parking availability close to the appeal property.

The Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document, [name] 2017 states that for HMOs located outside of district, strategic and town centres, such as the appeal site, that parking requirements will be assessed on its own merits.

With five occupants and only two spaces provided on the frontage, the development could result in three cars being parked on the road. However, the appeal site is within a sustainable urban area with shops and other commercial premises nearby. In addition, there are bus stops within easy walking distance of the property. As such, occupants of the HMO, and visitors to the property, have a range of transport modes available to them, as an alternative to car use. Provision for cycle storage would further encourage sustainable modes of travel, and a planning condition would secure appropriate details.

In the context of the above, a suitable amount of off-street parking is provided within the site. There is also no substantiated evidence that the development would exacerbate an existing on-street parking problem nearby or result in highway safety implications.

Consequently, for the reasons given, I conclude that the development would not cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety, with regard to parking. Therefore, it would not conflict with Policies L1 and S17 of the DS, which together, amongst other things, seek to ensure an adequate amount of off-street parking provision, to prevent detrimental impacts on highway safety.

I acknowledge that there were a number of representations from the occupiers of neighbouring properties in respect of the development. In addition to the main issues, the concerns included the suitability of a HMO in this area, the effect on the character of the neighbourhood, loss of a family home, crime and security, waste storage and collection arrangements, implications on drainage, and the effect on neighbouring living conditions, in respect of overlooking, noise and disturbance. These factors are not in dispute between the main parties and were addressed in the Council’s delegated officer report, with the Council concluding that there would be no material harm in these regards. Accordingly, even though there is an objection from the [name] from [name], there is no substantiated evidence that the development would lead to unacceptable harm. Given my findings above, and the suggested conditions, I have found no justification to dismiss the appeal.

Matters relating to health and safety and fire safety would be dealt with under different legislation and there is nothing before me to indicate that the development does not comply with building regulations and any other guidance.

A time limit condition is not necessary as the development has commenced. For similar reasons, although suggested by the Council, a condition stating the approved drawings is not necessary. In addition to the conditions set out in the main issues, I have also imposed a condition requiring the provision of bin storage arrangements within the site to avoid bins being permanently left on the site frontage or the street, to maintain the quality of the street environment and to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Since the development has already been implemented, I have required this to be provided within three months of the date of this decision.

The appeal scheme accords with the development plan, and there are no material considerations to lead me to determine the appeal other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.