Appeal 6001176

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 Council raised no concern regarding the proposed extensions, and I find no reason to disagree with their conclusion thereon. My recommendation therefore focuses on the proposed change of use from a dwelling into a House in [name] (HMO). The main issue in regard to which is whether it would provide adequate living conditions for its future occupiers, with specific regard to outlook, privacy and noise and disturbance.

The proposal would comprise nine en-suite bedrooms, which would be for up to nine individuals. At ground floor, there would be a communal kitchen and living/dining room, with bedrooms one and two positioned to the front and bedrooms three and four at the rear. Each of the ground floor bedrooms would be served by a single window and would have a wall adjoining with an external side access, located on both sides of the property. A communal rear outdoor space consisting of a lower patio and a raised garden would be available, with three bike stores proposed in the former. A bin store would be placed against a side wall shared with bedroom one. To the front, there is a short driveway with off-street parking for two vehicles parked in parallel.

Outlooks towards a front driveway and a rear garden are not uncommon for ground floor residential accommodations such as a bungalow. However, due to the driveway’s shallow depth, any parked vehicles would be positioned immediately outside of bedroom one and two’s windows. This would limit views to vehicles parked side-on and potentially stationary for extended periods, resulting in a very restricted and thus poor quality outlook for the occupants. Their close proximity would also enable drivers and passengers entering or exiting their vehicles to see directly into these rooms. Even if the driveway is unused, the limited setback between the windows and the public pavement would expose the occupants to views from passersby on the street. Footfall associated with the proposed bike and bin stores would also allow other residents to regularly pass near bedroom one and two’s windows, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.

The ground floor front windows have privacy film applied to their lower sections, indicating a current need to mitigate overlooking. If this were retained for bedrooms one and two, its opaque finish would further diminish the future occupant’s outlook. If removed, their views would still be unacceptably reduced, as the occupants would be inclined to keep their curtains or blinds closed to prevent direct views from both the public pavement and the front driveway. This would result in their outlook being further constrained in order to maintain an adequate level of privacy.

With regards to bedrooms three and four, the bike stores would be modest in height and would not obstruct outward views from their windows across the rear garden. However, the shallow depth of the lower patio would create very limited circulation space around them. Any residents accessing these would be brought into close proximity with the only windows serving the ground floor rear bedrooms, leading to intrusive overlooking and a harmful loss of privacy for the occupants.

When accessing and leaving the communal raised garden, residents would be required to pass directly beside the windows of bedrooms three and four. Due to the garden’s elevated position, any activity within it would be noticeable from these bedrooms, and residents using this outdoor area would, in turn, have direct views into the rooms. This would allow frequent opportunities for overlooking, further undermining the privacy of the occupants. To avoid this, occupants would again, be likely to keep their curtains or blinds closed, resulting in a substantially diminished outlook and an unacceptable reduction in the quality of their living conditions.

The occupants of bedrooms one and two would be subjected to sounds from engines starting or idling, vehicle doors opening and closing, the loading or unloading of items, shining from vehicle lights, music being played, and conversations between drivers and passengers. All of which would occur immediately outside their windows. Whilst the driveway would only serve two vehicles, the high number of occupants means its use would likely be recurrent. The handling of bicycles, the opening and closing of the bin store doors, and manoeuvring of bins would introduce further noise, particularly affecting bedroom one. Regular movements associated with accessing and storing bicycles would likewise take place directly outside bedrooms three and four. Additional activity linked with the use of the communal rear garden could also occur and include outdoor socialising or relaxing.

These comings and goings and general movement related activity would generate noise and disturbance that would unacceptably disrupt the living conditions of the future occupants of the ground floor bedrooms. Such movements could occur at unpredictable, or unsociable times and are likely to be frequent, given the high number of unrelated residents, with different routines. It is unreasonable to expect residents to tolerate substandard living conditions simply because their rooms are at ground floor. As the bedrooms would typically function as their primary living spaces, it is especially important that they benefit from adequate outlook and privacy, and minimal noise and disturbance.

The appeal scheme would exceed the minimum bedroom, bathroom, shared kitchen and common room floor areas, as set out in the ‘[name] - Houses in [name]. However, this is a guidance for HMO licensing purposes. Even if the minimum room sizes are met, this alone does not demonstrate that a scheme would provide acceptable living conditions. In this case, the layout of the external spaces, and their relationship with and proximity to the ground floor bedrooms, would fail to provide a sufficiently high quality living environment for the intended occupiers.

For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions for its future occupiers. It would therefore be contrary to Policies 9 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan

Together, and amongst other things, these seek for residential conversions to provide a high quality living environment. Proposals should also safeguard the amenity of future occupants by securing appropriate outlook and privacy, limiting noise and disturbance, and delivering comfortable, functional layouts.

The appeal scheme would contribute to housing provision by accommodating smaller individual households, thereby reducing pressure on other parts of the housing stock. However, if the accommodation provided offers substandard living conditions, then it would not genuinely meet these household’s needs. Additionally, the proposal’s use of an existing property and its sustainable location would not be determinative issues.

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.