Appeal 6001460

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for use of the basement level as a self-contained flat (Use Class C3) and the ground, first, and second floors as an 8-bedroom House in [name] (HMO) ([name]) and erection of cycle stores at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01431/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Within 28 days from the date of this decision, precise details of the covered secure bike storage to the front and rear of the building as indicated on drawing No P104 for use in connection with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The details shall include the design, materials, and precise layout of the secure bike storage as well as an installation plan relating to the bike storage to the front of the building which demonstrates that the health of existing trees will not be compromised. The design of the bike storage to the front of the building shall incorporate a flat / mono-pitch green roof. Any green roof shall be planted / seeded with a predominant mix of wildflowers which shall contain no more than a maximum of 25% sedum planted on a sub-base being no less than 80 millimetres thick. The secure bike storage, including the green roof as approved, shall be installed and planted in full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the Council’s written approval and shall be retained as such thereafter.

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 application form confirms that the change of use described has already taken place. Therefore, I have considered the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively. I have removed the words relating to the ‘retention of’ and the address from the description for the purposes of the decision paragraph as they are either surplus and / or not a description of development. I have also added the words ‘and erection of cycle stores’ as per the Council’s decision notice as this better reflects the full extent of the development.

The Council’s report contains inconsistent wording in relation to the effect of the development on No. 26. It first states that a cycle store to the rear to serve the HMO would lead to a loss of outlook and an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to occupiers of No 26. The report then concludes that there would be no loss of outlook or privacy given the existing building and the current use of the amenity space. In contrast the reason for refusal on the decision notice in relation to this neighbouring property specifically relates to noise and disturbance. For the avoidance of doubt, I have had regard to all these matters under the second main issue.

The appellant has confirmed that the proposed covered secure bike storage indicated to the property frontage would be positioned away from the trunk, anchored to the ground using shallow ground bolts or resin anchors, typically penetrating no more than 50 – 100mm and would not involve excavation or foundation works. On this basis, the Council has conceded that the structure would be unlikely to adversely affect the roots of the nearest tree and that provided it would be similar to that depicted in the Design and [name] it would not affect the tree canopy. I agree and precise details in respect of the structure and the method of installation could be secured by condition. Therefore, as this particular matter is not in dispute, it has not been necessary to consider it under the

The main issues are: • whether the acceptable living conditions are provided for occupiers of the development, having particular regard to, external space, cycle and refuse storage, outlook, light, privacy and noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 26), with particular regard to noise and disturbance, outlook and privacy.

[site address] (No 28) forms the end of a short terrace of three properties arranged over three and a half storeys. The building sits behind a stepped entrance with a small hard-surfaced forecourt at basement level, and a gravelled front garden, which contains trees, is enclosed by a low brick boundary wall and is shared with No 26. To the rear, a three-storey mono-pitch projection sits alongside a modest paved amenity space and backs on to an access path which extends to the rear of the terrace.

The external spaces to the rear of the terrace are characteristically modest and visible from either [address] or the access path to the rear. Even so, the evidence before me does not indicate there are any minimum size requirements in the development plan. Independent occupiers of the HMO and a one bedroomed flat are also less likely to congregate in a private garden than a family unit. [address] is situated opposite, providing a very close resource should occupiers of the development wish to sit out and this is acknowledged by the Council. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that individuals in the HMO or those within a one bedroomed unit would have large amounts of washing or that there are no other means to dry clothes.

The proposed block plan indicates secure bike storage to the front and rear of the site. This suggests at least one cycle space per occupant of the building could be provided and there is no dispute that this meets at least the cycle parking levels indicated at [name] of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) (the LP) and so too the requirements of Policy 82 of the LP. The bike storage provision for the one bedroomed flat, underneath the steps, would be accessed alongside the front entrance. Given its close proximity to the street and the average size of a bicycle, it is likely that bicycles could be reasonably manoeuvred into this designated space.

With regards to refuse storage, while the Council suggests its ‘[name] has made recommendations as to the number and size of refuse storage containers, it is not clear how this has been calculated. The block plan provided indicates that the development is served by two food waste, two recycling waste and two general waste bins and I saw this on my site visit. Without evidence to suggest otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that this is not sufficient for the indicated number of occupiers at No 28. I also observed on my site visit that these bins can be accommodated within the site as indicated on the submitted drawings.

Taking all the above factors into account, there is nothing to suggest that the external spaces or the indicated provisions for cycle and refuse storage make the building or site unsuitable for use as a HMO and one-bedroomed flat. Therefore, this specific requirement in Policy 48 of the LP is met.

Whether or not the access path to the rear of the application site is outside the applicant’s ownership, there is no meaningful evidence to suggest that this would be blocked, particularly given this could also prevent access to the rear of other properties in the terrace. As such the suggestion that the proposed bike storage to the rear would not be accessible is unsubstantiated.

With regards to the relationship of the secure bike storage with the basement flat, even accounting for the difference in levels, the store to the front would be set well forward of the front elevation. The floor plans also indicate that the dining/living space in the basement flat is served by multiple windows some of which are either offset or angled in relation to the indicated position of the secure bike storage. To the rear, the bike storage would only partially project across a bedroom window. Together with the modest height of these structures, as indicated in the design and access statement, adequate means of outlook and light would be provided for occupiers of the basement flat.

Those accessing the cycle storage would do so intermittently and such activity is not inherently noisy. Furthermore, the windows to the basement flat are already visible from [address] and from the access path to the rear of the terrace. Should occupiers wish to increase levels of privacy there would be nothing to prevent them installing blinds for example.

I conclude, the development provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers of the development having particular regard to external space, cycle and refuse storage, outlook, light, privacy and noise and disturbance. In those respects it complies with Policies 35, 48, 50 and 82 of the LP which require that development will not lead to significant adverse effects and impacts on health and quality of life from noise, that buildings are suitable for use as HMOs, have internal floor areas that meet or exceed the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – [name] (2015) with appropriate amenity space having regard to factors including context and effective and practical use, and provide at least the cycle parking levels in [name] of the LP. Living conditions of occupiers of No 26

The Council’s reason for refusal is specific that its concerns relating to noise and disturbance are associated with the provision of a cycle store within the rear amenity space. However, there is an intervening timber fence between the rear courtyard and No 26 and the nearest window at No 26 is set away from this boundary. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently noisy about the use of cycle storage. Such activity would also be intermittent and brief. It would be unlikely to materially increase levels of activity given the rear yards already back on to a communal access route serving the wider terrace and this also means that there would be no material effects on privacy beyond the existing situation. Based on the layout of the development relative to No 26, and that the envisaged modest height of the bike storage could be ensured through details approved by condition, there would also be no harm to outlook for occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling.

Therefore, the development will not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 26, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, outlook and privacy. In that particular regard, the development complies with [name] 35 and 48 of the LP which requires that development does not result in significant adverse effects on amenity from noise and that HMOs do not cause harm to residential amenity or the surrounding area.

The appeal site lies within the Castle and [address] Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA includes a densely urban mixture of residential and office developments with [address] forming the later phase of the 19th Century residential terraced streets between [address] to [address]. The appeal building reflects this character, forming part of a terrace constructed in gault brick, with a lower basement floor and rooms at attic level. They are sat behind small front gardens enclosed by low brick walls and sit opposite [address] positively contributing to the character and appearance of the CA.

In exercising my duties under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. As there is nothing to suggest that the development has led to any significant changes to the external appearance of the building, given the modest scale of the proposed cycle stores the details of which, including the relationship with the aforementioned tree, can be controlled by condition, I am satisfied that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

With regards to third-party concerns not covered under the main issues, any issues arising in the event that bike storage was attached to a neighbouring property would be a private matter between landowners. Generalised assertions that the development will lead to rubbish being thrown everywhere or attract criminal activity have not been substantiated.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions put forward by the Council. As the appeal seeks retention of the specified uses, timescales for implementation and for the development to be ‘carried out’ in accordance with specified plans would neither be appropriate or necessary. The decision paragraph does, however, confirm that the permission relates to the plans submitted with the application.

The suggested condition requiring details of covered secure cycle parking to be provided within 28 days of the decision is reasonable and necessary to ensure that appropriate bike storage facilities are provided, that their scale reflects that envisaged in the application and that their final design preserves the character and appearance of the CA. I have amended the Council’s wording to relate to the facilities indicated on the proposed block plan and that the necessity for a green roof relates to the cycle store to the front of the building given its relationship with the street frontage within the CA. I have also incorporated a requirement for details as to how that particular store will be installed using techniques to ensure that the root system and canopy of nearby trees are not impacted upon.

I have not included the Council’s condition relating to the provision of a covered bin store. The bins are small scale and typical of those generally seen in the area including within neighbouring frontages. There is nothing to suggest that covered refuse storage situated very close to the front boundary would be more understated or would assimilate well with its surroundings. Moreover, the Council has not refused planning permission on character and appearance grounds, and a bin store does not form part of the proposal.

The Council’s conditions restricting the number of occupiers in the HMO and that the internal communal area is retained as such are not necessary as the number of occupiers is specified in the description of the development and thereto the decision. Therefore, more intensive occupation that might lead to an alternative use of the communal area would need separate planning permission.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR