Appeal 6000914

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The appeal was accompanied by a deed of unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure mitigation measures aimed at protecting the integrity of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (the SAC). I do not consider that any parties have been prejudiced by the submission of the planning obligation at appeal stage. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s deed of unilateral undertaking.

The main issues are:  whether the loss of a single dwelling in this location would conflict with the aims of local planning policy to create mixed and balanced communities; and  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and living conditions of neighbouring residents, with respect to noise and general activity.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace four bedroom dwelling. [address] has a suburban, residential character, albeit there are commercial uses such as children’s nurseries and a hotel located close by.

Policy LP5 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (Local Plan) identifies a significant need for larger, family sized homes (three bedrooms or more) across all tenures within the borough. Of particular relevance to the appeal proposal, Policy LP6 of the Local Plan sets out specific criteria for developments involving the conversion of larger homes into houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The supporting text to this policy explains that recent increases in dwelling conversions, including conversions to HMOs, have led to the loss of family-sized housing. This has resulted in an erosion of the borough’s existing stock of larger homes, creating serious challenges in maintaining an adequate supply of family sized accommodation.

As a consequence, Policy LP6 aims to maintain a mixed housing offer across the borough by protecting the existing stock of family housing. In relation to this first main issue, the policy requires that the conversion of a larger home to HMO use will only be permitted where it is located within a Metropolitan, District or Local Centre. The appeal site is not within any of these Centres and the proposal therefore conflicts with Policy LP6 in this regard. Whilst the main parties are in agreement that the dwelling exceeds [address] metres floor area, as required by Policy LP6, the proposal would result in the loss of a larger family sized home.

I acknowledge that, whilst outside a defined Centre, the appeal site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 4, which indicates a good access to public transport. The site is within reasonable walking distance of Ilford town centre which has a wide range of shops and services, and the busy [address] which I saw during my site visit benefits from bus services and shops and services. Within the town centre, the [name] provides direct access to central London.

However, Policy LP6 identifies a greater need for 3 or more bedroom family housing. I also note that the Havering and Redbridge Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (2023) identifies a significant need for 3 and 4 bedroom housing in the Borough. Therefore, the proposal would be at the expense of a family sized house for which, on the basis of the evidence before me, there is an identified need. The cumulative loss of such family sized accommodation would, over time, harm the objectives of maintaining and increasing the supply of larger dwellings that are suitable for family occupation in the Borough.

I have been referred to an appeal decision at [address] ([name]: APP/W5780/W/21/3280052). In that instance the appeal property was a five bed dwelling, for which the Inspector identified that the evidence indicated there was a lower level of demand.

I have also been referred to an appeal proposal at [address] ([name]: APP/W5780/W/20/3256158). In that instance, the Inspector determined that as the appeal property was an existing HMO, Policy LP6 of the Local Plan was not applicable. Furthermore, that site also had a PTAL rating of 5, indicating a higher level of accessibility than the proposal before me.

As such, there are material differences between the circumstances of the two appeal schemes and those of the appeal proposal before me. In any event, each case must be determined on its own individual circumstances and, in this case, as I have identified above, the proposal would result in the loss of a larger family size dwelling whilst failing to meet all the criteria set out within policy LP6.

It therefore conflicts with Policy LP6 which relates to the conversion of larger homes. I also find conflict with Policy LP5 of the Local Plan insofar as it requires proposals to provide a range of dwelling sizes particularly focusing on the provision of larger family sized homes in line with the preferred housing mix.

The submitted drawings indicate that the appeal property is a four-bedroom dwelling, likely to be occupied by five or more people. A family of this size would generate regular comings and goings, which would vary depending on the ages and circumstances of the occupiers.

The proposal would accommodate up to nine persons in six bedrooms (three double and three single rooms). The increase in residents who are not related may result in slightly increased activity compared to a family dwelling. However, activities such as travelling to and from work would not be disturbing to neighbouring residents, and this small increase in activity would not, in itself, demonstrate that the proposed HMO use would cause material harm to neighbouring occupiers or the character of the area.

The supporting text to Policy LP6 notes that high concentrations of dwelling conversions, including HMOs, can result in cumulative pressures on on-street parking and local services. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that [address] or the surrounding streets have a particularly high level of such conversions.

The proposal would not result in significant external alterations to the appeal property which would be visible from [address]. In addition, the number and layout of off-street parking spaces would remain unaltered, and I note that the main parties are satisfied that off street parking can be controlled through an appropriately worded planning condition. As a result, the proposal would not lead to additional on-street car parking within the area. The Council are satisfied that there is sufficient space within the site to provide satisfactory levels of cycle, waste and recycling storage.

In addition, the Council acknowledges that the appellant has provided a Management Plan as required by Policy LP6 of the Local Plan, albeit minor amendments would be sought via condition. The document outlines how anti-social behaviour from future occupiers would be addressed if necessary. Taking the above into account, although the site is not within an identified Centre, I find that the proposed residential intensification would be unlikely alter the character of the street.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not affect the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, with respect to noise and general activity. It would therefore accord with Policies LP6 and LP26 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals respect and integrate with local character and ensure that proposals do not harm neighbouring occupiers living conditions.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a protected European site. Residential development in this area is likely to increase recreational pressure on the SAC, potentially affecting its ecological integrity. To address this, the Council has adopted a strategic mitigation approach, requiring financial contributions secured by a legal agreement.

The appellant provided a completed legal agreement with the planning appeal to secure the necessary mitigation. Nevertheless, as the appeal is being dismissed on other substantive planning grounds, it is not necessary to consider this issue further. - Other issues

A significant number of concerns from third parties have been raised in relation to the development. However, given my conclusions on the main issues and that the appeal is dismissed, there is no need for me to address these in further detail.

The evidence indicates that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Furthermore, the Council failed the most recent [name], delivering 39% of its annual housing target.

In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework states that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and would contribute towards the Council’s housing supply. The Framework acknowledges that small-scale development can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements. The Framework further gives great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within settlements for homes and supports the development of under-utilised buildings. The proposal would also align with the Framework where it seeks to achieve well-designed places, and would also contribute to the local economy. However, given the relatively limited scale of the development, these factors carry modest weight.

I acknowledge that HMOs can play an important role in meeting particular housing needs, especially for lower income residents, for young people and for those needing temporary accommodation. There is no doubt a benefit in providing this type of relatively affordable accommodation and I give that consideration moderate weight.

However, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the supply of family housing in the Borough, and therefore conflicts with the aims of national and local planning policy to create mixed and balanced communities. In particular, paragraphs 61 and 63 require Councils to plan for, and manage, patterns of housing growth to meet an area’s identified housing need. Within this context of establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. It has been put to me that Policies LP5 and LP6 are deemed to be out of date in relation to the approach set out in Framework paragraph 11d. However, this does not mean that they carry no weight, and the amount of weight to be given to development plan policies is a matter of planning judgement for the decision maker. In this instance, I am satisfied that the policies are broadly consistent with the Framework, and I attach significant weight to the conflict I have identified with them. Although the shortfall in housing land supply and delivery also attracts significant weight, and the proposal would provide some benefits, including additional accommodation, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Taking all of this into account, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.