Appeal 6001114

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: the effect of the development on the supply of a family homes; and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy 8 of the Havering Local Plan indicates that the Council will support applications for Houses in [name] (HMO) where it accords with several criteria including that the overall size of the original property to be converted is not less than [address] metres (sqm). The supporting text for the policy states that the [name] Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identified a need for three-bedroom properties in the borough, meaning the conversion of small family homes to HMOs would have a particularly negative impact on the supply of family housing and that in order to protect family housing, properties must be at least 120 sqm in order for a conversion to an HMO to be considered acceptable which is required by criteria (i) of Policy 8.

The overall size of the appeal property does exceed 120 sqm, however this is due to extensions and alterations that have been built, and the size of the original property was less than 120 sqm based on the Council’s figures. The appellant has not disputed the Council’s figures and based on the information before me I find no reason to do so either. Whilst the extended property is now greater in size than the smaller family homes the policy seeks to protect, it is clear the policy refers to the original property and, in this instance, the original property was a smaller family home that the policy seeks to protect.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with criteria (i) of Policy 8 of the LP insofar as it seeks to protect the supply of family homes.

The appeal property comprises a three-bedroom end-terrace dwelling. The proposal seeks permission to convert this into a three-bedroom HMO. The property is situated within a predominantly residential area interspersed with a limited number of alternative uses. All bedrooms would be located on the first floor. The ground floor would be reconfigured to provide two kitchens, a dining area, and three shared living spaces, resulting in a substantial amount of communal living accommodation. The proposed bedroom sizes comply with the [name] standards. While the internal arrangement may give the impression that part of the building could function as a self-contained unit, the appeal before me seeks permission solely for use as a three-bedroom HMO.

Compared to a single-family dwelling, an HMO occupied by unrelated adults is likely to result in differing daily routines, deliveries, visitors, and less likelihood of shared family activities. Nevertheless, the number of bedrooms would remain unchanged, and the property could already accommodate a family, potentially including several adults.

While only a snapshot in time, the nearby roads were heavily parked with vehicles at the time of my site visit. As such, pedestrian and vehicular comings and goings from other nearby properties contribute towards a general level of activity and disturbance. Pedestrian and vehicular movements associated with the proposal would be transient, with any associated noise limited in duration. Even if some occupiers worked evenings, resulting in late-night comings and goings, this would not necessarily equate to an unacceptable impact on residential living conditions.

Given that the proposal would not significantly increase the number of occupiers who could reside in the property, there is no clear evidence that the existing refuse and recycling storage facilities at the front of the property would be inadequate for the proposed use. Additionally, the garden is of considerable size and could accommodate bin storage if required.

Furthermore, the substantial size of the communal living accommodation would provide sufficient internal space for typical day-to-day activities without resulting in over-intensification. For these reasons, any limited intensification arising from the proposal would not lead to significantly greater levels of noise or disturbance than the existing situation. The concerns raised appear to relate more to individual behaviour than to the proposed HMO use.

Even if part of the property was used in a self-contained manner, given the modest level of intensification, the proposal would not give rise to a substantial increase in activity either within the property or in the surrounding area. Moreover, the evidence indicates that there is only one other HMO on the street, and the Council confirms that HMOs are limited in number within the wider vicinity. Accordingly, the proposal would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs, nor would it give rise to any cumulatively harmful effects were the appeal to be allowed.

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed residential use would have a significant adverse impact or appear out of keeping within this residential context.

I acknowledge comments from interested parties regarding the current occupiers of the appeal property. However, these relate to the existing use of the property, which, based on the information before me, does not have permission to operate as an HMO. Consequently, any perceived harm arising from the current occupation is not related to the proposal under consideration.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not give rise to a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, insofar as it relates to criterion (iii) of Policy 8 the proposal would not conflict with that policy or Policy 34 of the LP. These expects schemes for HMOs to, amongst other matters, not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and will not be likely to give rise to significantly greater levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties than would a single-family dwelling of equivalent size.

HMOs form an important component of London’s housing provision, offering flexible and relatively affordable accommodation within the private rented sector and helping to alleviate pressure on other parts of the housing stock. In this instance, the appeal scheme would provide a home for three households, making efficient use of previously developed land, which weighs in favour of the proposal. The development would also generate both short and long-term economic and social benefits. However, given the modest scale of the scheme, particularly when compared with the existing family dwelling and the contribution it already makes to the housing stock, I attribute only moderate weight to these benefits.

The proposal would result in the loss of a three-bedroom family dwelling, thereby conflicting with Policy 8 of the Local Plan (LP), which seeks, amongst other matters, to safeguard the supply of family homes identified through the SHMA as being needed within Havering. There is robust evidence demonstrating the importance of retaining such accommodation. The purpose of Policy 8 is consistent with paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which emphasises that housing provision should meet identified local needs, including through an appropriate mix of dwelling types. While paragraph 61 also acknowledges the value of proposals that broaden housing choice, this must be carefully balanced against the loss of a family home in an area where there is a clearly defined need for such properties. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the Framework in this respect, and I attach substantial weight to this conflict.

The Council accepts that it can only demonstrate a 3.4-year housing land supply and as such paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged. Despite this, I conclude that the adverse impact of the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the identified benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged in this instance.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.