Appeal 6000974

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing residential dwellinghouse (use class C3), and outbuildings for use as an 11 person HMO ([name]) with addition of parking, cycle spaces and bin storage and boundary fencing at [site address] , Bromley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03012/FPA, subject to the conditions in the following schedule.

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.

In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development in the header and Decision above from the Council’s decision notice, following amendments to the proposal during the application stage which reduced the proposed occupancy from 13 persons to 11 persons.

An application for costs was made by [name] & Building Design against the London Borough of Bromley. This application will be subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers; and the effect of intensification on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

As part of the appeal proposals bedrooms 2 and 3 would be situated on the ground floor adjacent to the shared kitchen area. I note the observations highlighted by the inspector in previous appeal decisions1 for the site regarding this being a less comfortable arrangement due to the occupiers of both bedrooms only having access via the shared kitchen. [name] note that the corridor serving the bedrooms would also serve the kitchen, the appeal scheme has also now introduced an external door to the rear. This door would serve the rear amenity area and cycle storage area and an access to the pedestrian footway adjacent to the site. Therefore, residents could exit the site without having to use the main site entrance. As a result, I consider this additional access for occupiers could be used as a satisfactory primary access to rooms 2 and 3 without passing through the internal communal space, overcoming previous concerns.

In addition, the proposal provides good quality private and communal space for future occupants through the provision of necessary facilities for 11 future occupants. These meet the requirements of the Council’s standards for houses in multiple occupation (HMO). Furthermore, provision is made for communal home office and laundry space in outbuildings within the site. This would free up space within the kitchen for storage and equipment and provide residents with a place outside of their bedrooms to work, should they choose to. Overall, this would result in good quality accommodation and living conditions for future occupants. If those communal office and laundry facilities were not provided however, the space available for residents would be significantly more limited, therefore it is necessary to secure that provision by condition.

For the above reasons I conclude that satisfactory living conditions would be provided for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy 9 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which require, amongst other things, developments to provide high quality living space with comfortable and functional layouts for the intended occupiers. Character and appearance of the area and living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties

The appeal site is situated within a varied area consisting of sports facilities and residential properties as well as a variety of open spaces which contribute to the London Green Chain. Overall, the character of the area is mixed. [site address] is a two-storey dwelling situated on the corner of [address] and [address]. The remaining two boundaries adjoin the playing fields of Kent County Cricket Club. The character of the area around the appeal site is therefore quite different to the predominantly single-family dwellings that characterise both [address] and [address] opposite, with the roads creating a clear visual separation between the two areas.

The proposed use, whilst still being residential, would nevertheless result in an intensification of the number of occupiers. This in turn would increase the number of comings and goings due to the number of unrelated individuals living together compared to that of a single-family dwelling. In addition, the pattern of these 1 APP/G5180/W/24/3350430 and APP/G5180/W/24/3354728 comings and goings are likely to be different compared to those of a typical single family.

However, the appeal site is on the opposite side of the intervening busy highway from the nearest dwellings. A more intensive and different pattern of activity might be perceived from that distance, however there would be sufficient separation between the properties that it would not cause a direct harmful effect in terms of noise and disturbance for occupiers of any neighbouring property. Nor would the associated increase in passersby be so uncharacteristic on these roads as to justify withholding planning permission.

I note that the appellant has provided a management plan setting out some details of how they would maintain the property. However, the management plan submitted is generic and not robust in how it would deal with management of the specific circumstances of the appeal site. Nevertheless, a suitable, site specific management plan can be secured by a planning condition, to ensure that the property is kept in good repair and the behaviour of tenants appropriately managed.

Turning to the appeal decisions referenced by the Council, these appear to be in distinctly different contexts to the appeal site and its surroundings. The examples cited2 all appear to be in more densely urbanised areas within buildings that are either semi-detached or terraced. This is starkly different to the appeal site arrangement as a detached building separated from the single-family dwellings opposite and in a less densely built-up area. Furthermore, the cycle and refuse storage proposed here would be at the rear of the site, not the front, and would not result in harmful visual clutter or paraphernalia as highlighted in the appeal decisions cited. Consequently, I find that these examples are not comparable to the appeal proposal and do not justify refusal in the specific circumstances of this appeal.

I therefore conclude that, subject to conditions, the proposed intensification would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies 9 and 37 of the LP (2019) which seek to maintain the character and appearance of the area and require that such conversions do not harm the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

The proposal would result in the loss of a single-family dwelling, however there is no substantive evidence before me that this would have a detrimental impact on housing choice in the locality. It would also provide non-self-contained accommodation at a lower price point in an area where the evidence before me suggests there are significant issues with the affordability of housing. Consequently, the benefits of providing this type of accommodation would offset the loss of one family dwelling.

Third parties have raised concerns that the proposal will result in harm to the existing parking situation and result in a risk to highway safety. From the information before me, my observations on site and the comments from the highway authority I am satisfied that the appeal proposal would provide an adequate level of car and cycle parking for future occupants, particularly given the 2 APP/G5180/W/24/3352192, APP/G5180/W/25/3358604 and APP/G5180/W/25/3359868 availability of public transport locally. I also observed that the surrounding area has parking controls, so it is unlikely that any parking overspill from the site, were it to occur, would result in any adverse impact on highway safety. While the area is busy when events are occurring at local sports facilities, there is no substantive evidence before me that the proposal would contribute to any difficulties on these days.

Furthermore, the access arrangements provided at the appeal site are sufficient to allow vehicles to access and egress the site safely, using the existing accesses. The level of traffic generated by the proposal is likely to be greater than a single-family dwelling, however it would not result in a significant increase in vehicle movements on this busy road or at the junction compared with the existing traffic flows. Consequently, the proposal would not harm highway safety.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions. Where necessary I have amended the wording to ensure they meet the relevant tests.

Time and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty. In addition I recommend conditions limiting the number of occupants to 11 in the interests of ensuring high quality living conditions for future occupiers. Monitoring of occupancy would be achievable, and an occupancy condition is therefore enforceable. While the Council has suggested that rooms be limited to single occupancy, this is not necessary given that the rooms are relatively small, and suitable only for single occupancy. An overall limit on occupancy is therefore reasonable.

Conditions requiring provision of the laundry and office facilities and limiting the use of the outbuildings are required to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupiers. A condition is also necessary to secure the provision and implementation of a robust site management plan for the reasons set out above.

A condition securing hard and soft landscaping is reasonably necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. However, the requirements and pre-commencement timescale suggested by the Council go beyond what is reasonably necessary for this scheme, therefore I have amended the wording accordingly.

Conditions securing the provision of cycle and vehicle parking spaces are required in the interests of highway safety, however it is not necessary to remove permitted development rights in parking areas, as no such rights exist for HMOs.

A condition requiring the provision of refuse and recycling storage details is required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, however as details of that storage have already been provided, it is not necessary to require further details to be submitted and approved. A condition requiring the compliance with the submitted [name] is reasonably necessary in the interests of health and safety and to meet the requirements of London Plan Policy D12.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has suggested several requirements regarding ventilation and fire safety measures. These would however be covered by Building Regulations, therefore there is no need to duplicate these through planning conditions.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions in the following schedule.

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PL-159-100, PL-159-200 [name], PL-159-210, PL-159-211 [name] and PL-159-212 [name].

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until communal laundry and home office spaces have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Those facilities shall thereafter be retained and made available for use by residents of the development only.

The detached outbuildings within the site shall only be used for the purposes hereby permitted and for purposes incidental or ancillary to the use of the house in multiple occupation, and shall not be used as bedroom space, overnight accommodation or for any other purpose.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include details how the site and property will be managed, including internal and external maintenance of the site and buildings and a complaints process, The site shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved management plan at all times.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a landscaping scheme setting out details of treatment of all parts on the site not covered by buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the installation of all hardstanding and boundary treatments has been completed in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall include proposed hardstanding and boundary treatments, planting, and sufficient specification to ensure successful establishment and survival of new planting. All planting shall be completed in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or first occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner. The development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The property shall not be occupied for the use hereby permitted unless car parking spaces and turning spaces have been provided and made available for use in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. Those areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for such use at all times.

The property shall not be occupied for the use hereby permitted unless facilities for secure parking of cycles have been fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans and made available for use. Such facilities shall thereafter be retained and kept available for use at all times. 10)The property shall not be occupied for the use hereby permitted unless provision has been made within the site for the storage of refuse and recycling in accordance with the approved plans. The refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained and kept available for use at all times 11)The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the fire statement form by Fire Guidance UK LLP dated 27/05/2025 (reference 24006-PFS-001-RD 20250527 [name]) and that document shall be adhered to thereafter.