Appeal 6000981

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use from a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6 bedroom House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class C4) and single-storey rear extension and alterations, bicycle and bin storage, in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01744/FUL, subject to the following 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 drawing nos 3093 01 Existing, 3093-02A Proposed.

Prior to the occupation of the building as a House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class C4), the bicycle and bin stores shall have been constructed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan 3093- 02A Proposed. The stores shall be retained permanently thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the building as a House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class C4), a certificate indicating that the necessary works have been completed to confirm that the building has an EPC rating of C or above shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of the property as a House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class C4), the proposed soundproofing works to the party wall with the adjacent dwelling, No [address], must be installed and retained thereafter in perpetuity.

The description of the proposed development on the application form is “change of use from a 3-bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 7 bedroom House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis) with a single-storey rear extension and bicycle storage”. The description was amended by the appellant prior to determination of the application by the Council. This followed the submission of amended plans. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the amended plans and description, “change of use from a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6 bedroom House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class C4) and single-storey rear extension and alterations, bicycle and bin storage”.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers of neighbouring properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a 2 storey, 3 bedroom semi-detached house in a row of similar buildings dating from the 1950s. The house is arranged with its ground floor living room, dining room and 2 of the first-floor bedrooms next to the party wall with No [address]. The kitchen and bathroom are on the opposite side of the house on the ground and first floors respectively, albeit the kitchen is open plan with the dining room. My observations on site, and from the Council’s evidence, indicate that No [address] shares a similar, albeit handed layout. I noted on site that No [address]’s television was audible from inside the appeal property’s ground floor living room and that the party wall was not of traditional masonry construction.

The proposal is likely to result in an increase in the intensity of the use of the appeal property. There would inevitably be greater activity on the site as a maximum of 6 unrelated individuals come and go, each having their own living pattern as opposed to a single household. Likely characteristics would include the simultaneous playing of music or watching television, or use of bathroom/shower facilities. Other characteristics would include the receipt of visitors by each of the 6 occupiers, doors closing and people conversing in each room.

The proposed layout of rooms would clearly result in a number of the abovementioned noise sources being in direct proximity to the party wall with No [address]. Of specific note is the proposed positioning of the first-floor communal bathroom abutting this wall, and I acknowledge the Council’s comments that there is no detail within the submission as to how pipes would be arranged to serve the sanitaryware. I also acknowledge that a proposed bedroom would adjoin No 29’s living room. Given that noises sourced from No 29 could be easily discerned from within the appeal property, it is logical to conclude that the proposal would result in a harmful increase in levels of noise and disturbance experienced by No 29 if there was no mitigation.

There is no evidence before me that such noise and disturbance cannot be mitigated by insulation, and the appellant has provided examples of where properties of similar construction were suitably noise insulated to the agreement of the Council without the need for acoustic reports to be submitted. In this context I find that the requirement for an acoustic report is unnecessary.

Externally, there would be changes in character resulting from the appeal proposal but because of the boundary fences to No [address], the location of the proposed external doors, and alignment of the pathway and steps to the public footway at the front and [address] road to the rear, I find that there would not be significant harm to future occupiers of neighbouring properties, including No 31.

In reaching these findings I have had regard to comments from interested parties in relation to the elderly age and ill health of neighbours to the appeal site, albeit I have no evidence before me of their exact characteristics.

Overall, I find that, subject to a condition to secure the necessary noise insulation, there would be no unacceptable, harmful effects on the living conditions of future occupiers of neighbouring properties, including Nos 29 and [address], with regards to noise and disturbance. As a result, there would be accordance with policy D6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council Placemaking Plan 2017 (PP). This policy seeks to ensure that developments provide appropriate levels of amenity and not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing or proposed occupiers of residential or other sensitive premises by reason of, amongst other things, increased noise and other disturbance. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to the provisions of section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and, specifically, paragraph 135’s provision that developments should provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Interested parties have raised concerns about the concentration of HMOs in the area and the consequences of the proposal resulting in additional demands for parking, a loss of a family home, the loss of demand on an already undersubscribed school, the extra demands on refuse collections, and the changing identity of the area. There is common ground between the appellant and the Council that the appeal proposal is acceptable in relation to all of these matters. I have no evidence before me to come to different findings. In reaching these findings I have had regard to the Council’s and the appellant’s evidence which confirms that the use of the appeal property as a HMO would not conflict with policy H2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name] 2023 (LPPU). This policy seeks to ensure that, where there is a high concentration of existing HMOs, further changes of use to HMO use should be resisted in the interests of supporting a balanced community. Assessment against this criterion is informed by guidance contained within the Council’s Houses in [name] in Bath Supplementary Planning Document 2022 (HMOSPD) to which I have had regard.

The Council’s evidence states that the proposed rear extension would result in harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of No [address] by reason of adversely impacting on their afternoon and evening light. The nearest opening on the ground floor of No 29 to the appeal site is a pair of patio doors opening out onto a patio. The light afforded to the room served by the patio doors and to the patio itself is already reduced by a boundary wall, and an existing conservatory and shed within the appeal site, both adjoining this boundary. The proposed extension would project further from the main building than the conservatory. It would also be higher, of more solid construction and nearer the boundary. This would result in a degree of harm to the living conditions of No 29 but, given the existing context of the conservatory, shed and boundary wall, the level of harm would be minor and acceptable. Policy D6 of the PP advises that development must not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing residential premises by reason of, amongst other things, loss of light. I find there is no conflict with this policy.

The appeal site lies within the City of Bath World Heritage Sites. It was originally inscribed for its [name], Roman archaeology, Georgian buildings and natural landscape setting. In 2021 a second inscription was received as one of the [name] of Europe – fashionable spa towns laid out around natural springs which are used for health and wellbeing. In this instance, due to the nature and location of the proposed development, it would not result in harm to the outstanding universal values or the setting of the World Heritage Sites.

The Council have stated that the proposed bedroom sizes are, predominantly, only marginally larger than the minimum standard specified in the HMOSPD. I have no evidence before me as to why the sizes proposed would be unacceptable. I note that, not only do the rooms sizes conform with the HMOSPD, but each room would include an opening window for natural ventilation and light, access to either private or shared bathroom/shower facilities, and access to a communal kitchen/living room and garden. As such I find that the living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed HMO would be acceptable and accord with the HMOSPD subject to the implementation of the necessary insulation measures proposed by the appellant.

Interested parties have raised concerns that the appeal proposal would result in the decrease in value of homes in the area. [name] have had regard to this matter in reaching my decision, I have afforded it little weight as a material consideration. I have reached a similar finding in relation to comments about contributions to Council Tax, again affording that matter little weight as a material consideration.

Finally, matters relating to the structural capabilities of the appeal building to accommodate the proposed development, right to light, and antisocial behaviour in the area as a result of the proposal, as raised by interested parties, are not matters that I can consider under a section 78 planning appeal and do not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring a certificate, confirming that the necessary works have been completed to an EPC rating of C or above, is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This is necessary in the interests of energy efficiency and to accord with policy H2 of the LPPU. I have also imposed a condition securing the implementation and retention thereafter of the sound insulation necessary to avoid significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of No [address].

Finally, I have included a condition requiring the completion and retention thereafter of the proposed bicycle and bin stores. The condition is imposed in the interests of fostering the use of bicycles rather than cars for journeys to accord with the principles of policy ST7 of the LPPU, and to secure adequate storage and functional arrangements for refuse and recycling in the interest of the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed HMO and neighbouring properties and to accord with policy D6 of the PP.

For the reasons set out above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other matters raised, I conclude that there will be no harm to living conditions of future occupiers of neighbouring properties, specifically in relation to noise and disturbance. The appeal should be allowed.