Appeal 6001407

The appeal is dismissed.

It was observed during my site visit that internal and external works to the property had been undertaken broadly in-line with the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • whether the development protects occupants from the effects of flood risk; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of the HMO regarding the amount and quality of space; and • whether appropriate bin storage facilities have been provided.

No [site address] is located within [name] 2 (FZ2), and the ground floor level is at risk of tidal and coastal flooding even though flooding would only occur in the more extreme modelling circumstances. It is common ground between the main parties that the first-floor level is above the level that water would likely reach in the event of a flood.

The change of use of the existing building to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) is exempt from requiring compliance with the Sequential and [name]. Nevertheless, the development included the provision of two private bedrooms for tenants on the ground floor, and therefore still needs to address flood risk policies to ensure it remains safe over its lifetime, as articulated at paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) sets out an avoid, control, mitigate and manage residual risk process where flood risk is a consideration.

Avoiding the risk of flooding, such as raising finished floor levels (FFLs), should be prioritised over mitigation measures. The Council provides little commentary on the matter of avoidance, and I am therefore content that avoidance measures would be impractical, such as raising the ground floor FFLs by approximately 0.9m, as confirmed in the appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

I am therefore directed to consider mitigation measures in this case. Regardless of the duration of the event, the measures should include the ability for residents to find safe refuge within the building during a flood and the inability to evacuate, which is vitally important to safeguard life and possessions. The ground floor bedrooms are private and likely contain most of their occupants’ personal property. Rooms are located at first and second floor level that could in theory provide refuge for the ground floor occupants in the event of a flood. However, they comprise bathrooms and private tenant bedroom space that could be locked and inaccessible to other residents for personal safety and security reasons. Furthermore, the stairs and hallways are particularly narrow. I therefore find that there is an insufficient amount and type of refuge space above ground floor level to accommodate the ground floor residents and their personal possessions in the event of a flood.

The appellant asserts that ground floor rooms could be converted into bedrooms in a conventional house without the need for planning permission. [name] find no reason to disagree, residents of the house would likely have access to all rooms on the upper floors for refuge and the ground floor bedrooms would not be the sole space used to store their possessions. I therefore find that this fallback position has limited weight.

For the above reasons, and notwithstanding the other mitigation measures that are included within the FRA, I am not convinced that the proposal would protect future occupants from flood risk. The development is therefore contrary to Policy CS13 of the [site address] [name] (2015) (the CS), which amongst other things, requires a sustainable and practicable approach to flood risk. It also conflicts with the Framework, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated.

It is accepted that private bedrooms in HMOs need to be of an adequate size given that occupants are more likely to spend a greater amount of time within them. The Council accepts that the amount of floorspace in each bedroom exceeds requirements but has concern regarding the shape of the rooms and the resultant amount of useable space available. I observed during my site visit that the rooms are relatively regular in shape, and some provide additional connected private living space. I find no reason to conclude that the bedrooms are substandard in either size or functionality.

Although no communal living room space is provided, the appellant asserts that the Council’s own HMO requirements account for such circumstances by requiring larger bedrooms, which the development is compliant with and significantly exceeds in terms of some of the bedrooms. There is no substantive evidence from the Council to contend this point, and I therefore concur with the appellant that the absence of communal living room space is acceptable in this case.

Furthermore, the kitchen and dining space, whilst not large, provides multiple cooking and washing points and an area for communal eating commensurate with the number of residents the HMO could accommodate.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development provides adequate living conditions for occupants of the HMO, regarding the amount and quality of space. Accordingly, it complies with CS Policy CS9 and [name] H12 and A1, which, amongst other things, seek to support HMO accommodation where it provides for the well-being of its occupants and ensure development is of high quality that protects the amenity of future residents.

The submitted plans show the provision of a dedicated bin storage area located to the side of the property. However, it was not clear whether the area was used for bin storage at the time of my site visit. The Council’s only concern on this matter is ensuring the bin store is covered appropriately given the need for a greater number of bins, its location close to the footway adjacent to [address] Central and the low height of the intervening wall. The Council has suggested the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and approval of details of a covered bin store, and its implementation thereafter, which is accepted by the appellant. The condition would ensure an appropriate solution is secured.

I therefore find that appropriate bin storage facilities would be provided. Consequently, the proposal would comply in this respect with CS Policy CS9 and LP Policy H12, which, amongst other things, require adequate and practical covered bin storage for the number of potential occupants when not located to the rear of the property.

The appeal site is located outside but near to the boundary of St George’s Conservation Area (SGCA). The statutory duty set out in section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area.

Alterations to the property are largely concerned with internal layout. However, uPVC windows have been installed largely within the existing openings and the chimney on the rear range of the building has been removed to maximise internal space.

The Council asserts that the alterations to the windows do not require planning permission in this case, and I find no reason to disagree. Furthermore, the removal of the chimney is a relatively minor alteration to the rear of the building, and the roof profile and the larger more prominent chimney located on the main part of the building have been retained. I am therefore content that the proposal preserves the character and appearance of SGCA.

The proposal provides additional HMO accommodation in a sustainable location with good connectivity and access to services and facilities. Furthermore, it makes more efficient use of an existing building. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have found in relation to flood risk.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.