Appeal 6000936

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development does not refer to the retrospective nature of the proposal. It is clear from the parties’ cases and my site visit that this is so, with the works completed and the change of use commenced. I have considered it accordingly.

The Council raised no concern regarding the rear extension, and I find no reason to disagree with their conclusion. My recommendation therefore focuses on the change of use from a dwelling into a House in [name] (HMO). The main issue in regard to which is whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for its occupiers, with specific regard to internal communal space, light, outlook and privacy.

The appeal scheme includes four en-suite bedrooms, with two single occupancy rooms and two double occupancy rooms. This change of use is normally permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order

However, on 13 June 2025, the Council introduced an Article 4 Direction to remove this permitted development right, meaning that planning permission is now required.

The only internal communal space is a ground floor kitchen/dining room, which is served by a single patio door. This door spans almost the full width of the rear wall and is of reasonable height. Although the kitchen benefits from less natural light than the dining area, the amount received is adequate. This is primarily due to the room’s long, narrow layout, where a gradual reduction in light towards the more internal areas is to be expected. As such, given the size and position of the patio door, it provides a sufficient level of light to this room.

The kitchen/dining room measures approximately [address] metres and exceeds the minimum of 11.[address] metres for a combined kitchen/dining room serving 4 to 6 occupants, as set out in Table 2 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Guidance and [name] 2018. However, this document is a guidance and is used for HMO licensing purposes only. Also, even if the minimum size is met, the layout, configuration, and usability of the space must still be suitable for all occupiers to provide acceptable living conditions.

In this case, the usable floorspace is restricted by kitchen units positioned along both sides of the room, resulting in highly constrained circulation space. This reduces the ability for occupants to move comfortably, particularly if the HMO were fully occupied and all six individuals were to use the kitchen facilities simultaneously. This space therefore feels overcrowded and significantly limits its practicality for day-to-day household activities.

The proposed floor plan shows how a dining table with six chairs could be provided. Instead, the space has been fitted with a breakfast bar with practical seating for only three people. The breakfast bar already narrows the dining area, and any replacement of it for a larger table with six chairs would only intensify the cramped feel of the space. Whilst it may be unlikely that all six residents would dine and socialise at the same time, this communal area must still offer the opportunity to do so if they wish, particularly in the absence of a separate communal living room.

The layout of the kitchen/dining room does not therefore provide an acceptable shared living environment and undermines the quality of life for the occupants. This lack of usable internal communal space forces the residents to spend more time in their individual rooms. As such, I am not persuaded that the space can function effectively as a communal kitchen and dining area, nor does it adequately support the social and practical needs of the occupants.

For these reasons, the proposal conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2024 (JDPD) and Policy CG4 of [name] (CS). Together, and amongst other things, these seek for development proposals to protect and offer a high level of amenity.

Bedroom two is on the ground floor and has a single window facing the communal rear space, consisting of a lower patio and a raised paved garden. A single aspect outlook onto a rear garden is typical for a ground floor bedroom and comparable to a rear facing room in a bungalow. The use of this external area is also limited to warmer months, and it may be unlikely that all six occupants would use this space simultaneously. Nonetheless, the property contains two double occupancy rooms, allowing for a greater likelihood of activity in this outdoor space. As the lower patio area directly adjoins bedroom two’s only window, direct views into this room are possible, resulting in a detrimental loss of privacy. To maintain this, the occupant would be compelled to keep their blinds or curtains closed for prolonged periods, significantly restricting their outlook and unacceptably reducing the quality of this occupant’s living conditions.

The appellant has cited another planning approval (Ref: 18236/24) for a HMO, which includes a ground floor bedroom with a window facing a rear yard. This is not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme, as this rear yard appears to be significantly smaller and offers limited opportunity for any meaningful outdoor use. Whereas the appeal site has a larger, fully paved rear garden and is shown on the submitted plans as capable of accommodating multiple benches. The potential level of activity within the rear garden is therefore greater for the appeal site. Particularly given the limitations of the internal communal space as I have set them out.

For these reasons, the proposal causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions for the occupier of bedroom two, with specific regard to privacy and outlook. Consequently, the appeal scheme is contrary to Policy JP-P1 of the JDPD and Policy CG4 of the CS. Together, and amongst other things, these seek for development proposals to protect and offer a high level of amenity.

The Council’s lack of engagement is a matter that should be taken up with them directly and is not for me to resolve here. Amended plans have been submitted with the appeal, proposing the addition of a rooflight above the dining area and a one way privacy mirror film to bedroom two’s window. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and what is considered at appeal should be the same as was by the Council and interested parties at application stage.

[name] were to take these into account, as set out above, the rear patio door provides a sufficient level of light. Whilst the privacy film would limit views into bedroom two, it would not satisfactorily address the identified harm. The film could alter the window’s appearance, unacceptably diminishing the occupant’s outlook. It would also not address the perception of overlooking. The occupant would remain fully aware of other residents being immediately outside their only bedroom window and when the window is open, it would do little to prevent views into the room.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.