Appeal 6001241

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the mix and balance of households in the local community.

The appeal site contains a terraced house with an integral garage. It is situated in a central, built-up part of the city and is surrounded by residential properties, including flats in purpose-built blocks and houses in [address] and [address]. The available evidence indicates there are various Houses in [name] (HMO) in the area, including seven within a 40-metre radius of the site. The wider area also includes a variety of other accommodation, such as student halls of residence off [address] and purpose-built flats in Maryfield, as well as other non-residential uses.

The Council’s ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that large numbers of HMOs in one area can change the physical character of that residential area and this can lead to conflict with the existing community. It cites the main concerns with HMOs relate to, amongst other aspects, amenity impacts due to the transient nature of the occupiers upsetting the balance and mix of households within the community; and disturbance arising from greater comings and goings of occupiers living independently compared to a typical family unit. In the light of concerns about the impact of HMOs, the SPD indicates that the Council will refuse planning permission where the proportion of HMO dwellings will exceed 10% of the residential properties within a 40-metre radius of the site. The SPD identifies a three-stage process for determining this.

Stage 1 sets out the residential properties to be identified are those located within the defined area of impact surrounding the site (the 40 metre radius) and is clear that all sub-divided properties including flatted blocks are counted as one whole property at the first stage. Stage 2 involves counting HMOs by investigating the residential properties identified at stage 1 to check whether they are an existing HMO or have HMO consent. For this stage, the SPD states that all separate units forming part of the sub-divided residential properties (identified at the first stage as a whole property) which are 1 and 2 bed flats will not be investigated. The final stage then calculates the concentration of HMOs surrounding the site as a percentage of the ‘total estimated number of existing HMOs’ against the ‘total number of residential properties’. For this stage, the SPD states that “the total number of residential properties does not include...all 1 and 2 bed flats which form part of the sub-divided properties (identified at the first stage)”.

The SPD indicates that the flatted developments within the 40-metre radius of the appeal site ([address] and [address]) should therefore be counted at stage 1 as one property each. The total number of properties for stage 1 is thus two more than the Council calculates. The Council’s stage 2 calculation identifies an uncontested seven HMOs in the 40 metre radius; and as per the SPD, the Council did not investigate any 1-2 bed flats in the two flatted blocks for potential HMO use (since such units are unlikely to accommodate the number of individuals to constitute an HMO). The Council’s stage 3 calculation identifies an HMO concentration of 29% in the relevant area. However, as identified above, this calculation does not include the two flatted blocks.

Adding two more to the total number of residential properties, the overall calculation changes, albeit only marginally, and thus the existing HMO concentration in the area would still be well above the 10% threshold. However, with stage 3 of the SPD setting out that 1 and 2 bed flats should not be included in the ‘total number of residential properties’, this indicates to me that any flats larger than this should be counted in the total number. As no evidence is available to me on the size of units in either of the two flatted blocks, it is not possible to ascertain if there are any additional C3 flats that should be included in the total number of properties to be included in stage 3. Whilst some of the existing flats in the blocks may have three or more bedrooms, it is highly unlikely that all the flats would be this large. As such, the appellant’s calculations are also unlikely to represent the actual current concentration of HMOs based on the SPD’s approach.

Consequently, it seems to me that the actual HMO concentration in the relevant area is likely to be somewhere between the various figures put to me by the main parties. Either way, based on the available evidence and the approach set out in the SPD, the proposed HMO use of the site would result in the 10% threshold being exceeded. Whilst the surrounding area is relatively busy due to its built-up nature and central location, and both the vicinity of the site and the wider area do include a variety of properties and uses, an additional HMO would therefore lead/add to the over-concentration of such uses in the locality.

The area’s diverse residential character would not be changed by the proposed development. The proposed use would also result in neither a significant difference in the area’s overall composition and mix of housing nor any C3 property being ‘sandwiched’ between two HMOs. Nevertheless, the site’s use as an HMO would further unbalance the mix of households in the locality. As identified in the SPD, this would be to the detriment of the local community through amenity impacts from the more transient nature of the occupiers and the likely greater disturbance arising from more comings and goings of independent occupiers. In coming to this view, I have taken into account the garage conversions and presence of HMOs in the vicinity; the large number of people already living in the area and the likely level of noise associated with their movements and other activities; and that a condition could be imposed allowing the property to be occupied under either Class C3 or C4 without the need for a further planning application.

The site is in an area with a large number of flats, and these may well all be in use as C3 dwellings rather than as HMOs. On this basis, it may seem unreasonable to exclude all one- and two-bed flats within the total number of residential properties; and their exclusion may well be unrepresentative of the area’s true housing mix. Be that as it may, the SPD is clear that the total number of residential properties (in the stage 3 calculation) does not include all 1 and 2 bed flats; and given it is an adopted SPD having gone through public consultation, it attracts significant weight.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the amenity of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the mix and balance of households in the local community. I therefore find that it conflicts with Policies SDP1 and H4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review and Policy CS16 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Amongst other aspects, these set out that the Council will provide a mix of housing types and balanced communities and require development to not unacceptably affect amenity.

I have found that the proposed HMO use would harm the amenity of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the mix and balance of households in the local community. Based on the submitted evidence and my findings that the proposal would conflict with various local planning policies, this leads me to conclude that it conflicts with the development plan as a whole and would not make effective or efficient use of land.

With the Council only being able to demonstrate 2.85 years of supply against its target, there is a significant shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing sites in the city. In such circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that, for proposals involving the provision of housing, the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date.

However, the site already provides housing and although the property could be used by five unrelated occupants if converted to a small HMO, it would still be one house with shared facilities for occupiers’ use and would not include any separate self-contained accommodation. The Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) also describes Class C4 in the singular. Accordingly, whilst the appeal proposal would increase the amount of accommodation available for occupation, the change from C3 to C4 would not add to the number of units or the supply of housing.

Nevertheless, making use of previously developed land, the appeal proposal would increase available accommodation of a suitable standard in an accessible and relatively dense, busy city-centre location. As has been put to me, such locations may well be appropriate for HMO uses in general and suitable for shared accommodation where occupants are typically younger and have lower car ownership. Although there is little evidence to substantiate this, it is also said that the proposed conversion would contribute towards meeting local housing need and that, due to its central location, there is more demand for more affordable accommodation as an HMO than a family unit. In addition, the property could revert to single-family occupation at any time and thus support the Council’s objective to enable the dynamic use of dwellings in changing market conditions. These aspects weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.

However, the totality of the benefits and other points advanced in favour of the appeal proposal neither outweigh the harm I have identified nor form considerations of such weight that they warrant a decision to be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.