Appeal 6001517

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The living conditions of future residents with regard to outlook, light, privacy and amenity space; • Vehicle parking; • The living conditions of nearby residents with regards to privacy; and • The character and appearance of the appeal site and the area.

The majority of the proposed bedrooms would be served by elongated windows with a vertical emphasis on the side elevations. Due to the internal arrangement of the proposal, the windows would be divided between the rooms on the ground and first floor. This would result in bedrooms on the ground floor being served by windows set at a high level, which would not provide a suitable outlook for residents and would also limit the amount of natural light entering the bedrooms. This would result in oppressive and gloomy living conditions for occupants of these rooms. The appellant refers to the size of the windows and the urban seting, but given the design and scale of the windows this does not lead me to a different conclusion on the outlook and levels of natural light provided for the bedrooms.

The windows for most bedrooms on the first floor would be set at a low level and would not provide a suitable outlook for occupants. These rooms would also be served by rooflights which I consider would provide suitable levels of natural light, although the rooflights would also provide only a limited outlook. I am mindful that residents of the HMO would be likely to spend a significant period of time in their bedrooms, and on that basis I consider that the limited outlook enabled for occupants of these bedrooms on the first floor would also lead to oppressive living

In respect of the privacy of future residents, the overly constrained outlook enabled by the design of most bedroom windows would not enable intrusive visibility into those rooms. Two bedrooms on the first floor would have windows of a more typical design and outlook, and these would face onto properties on [site address] and [address]. But these would have a relatively elevated position compared to nearby dwellings and due to this arrangement there would not be intrusive overlooking into these bedrooms even allowing for the limited separation distance.

The would be a bedroom on the ground floor served by a window of a typical design on the rear elevation. Although this would be located close to the rear boundary wall, the elevated position and standard design of the window would enable suitable outlook and levels of light. Furthermore, despite the limited separation distance from the rear elevations on [address], the screening provided by the boundary wall would mitigate overlooking from nearby properties.

In respect of internal amenity space, the proposal would provide communal kitchen/dining areas on both the ground and first floor. As set out in the appellant’s evidence, these communal facilities exceed the floorspace set out in the Council’s HMO Guidance for an HMO of this form. Although the communal areas would include kitchen worktops and cupboards, there is nothing in the evidence before me that the HMO Guidance excludes these from the calculation of floorspace. Whilst the Council’s Housing Standards consultee asked for further details of the provision of appliances and layout, they did not object to the proposal on this issue.

The Council submits that the HMO Guidance is not adopted planning policy and relates to licensing, but nevertheless I consider it is a material consideration when assessing planning applications for HMO’s in the absence of other adopted specifications. The Council also specifies that the HMO Guidance dates from 2018 and that the standards are being reviewed; but I have not been provided with evidence that the HMO Guidance has been withdrawn or that alternative standards have been formally adopted. The Council refers to the aims of Policy JP-P1 of the PfE1 regarding amenity, but this does not include or refer to standards different from the HMO Guidance. Based on the evidence before me, the proposal would provide suitable internal amenity space for residents.

With regard to external amenity space, there is a fenced-off area around 3 sides of the building that would provide an external amenity area for residents. Although this currently has limited privacy, there is potential to provide screened areas for residents, particularly along [address] which is less prominent within the wider streetscape and faces onto primarily commercial properties. The proposal also has convenient access to public open space in the area, which when considered with the proposed internal and external amenity space would provide suitable recreational facilities for residents. On that basis, I consider that the proposal 1 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2024 would provide suitable facilities for residents with regards to external amenity space.

The Council refers to the number of residents of the proposal and the effect on the amenity of future occupants. However, I have concluded that the proposal would provide suitable amenity space, and that other than outlook and light the evidence suggests that the proposal would meet the criteria of the Council’s HMO Guidance. Based on the evidence before me, the Council’s concern in respect of the number of residents is not justified.

Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of internal and external amenity space as well as the number of residents, I conclude that the proposal would lead to an oppressive environment for the occupants of the great majority of bedrooms of the proposal with regards to outlook, and would not provide suitable levels of natural light for occupants of the majority of bedrooms on the ground floor. The proposal would therefore conflict with the amenity requirements of Policy JP-P1 of the PfE and Policy CG4 of [name] 2011 (the [name]). The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users of development.

The appeal site is in a primarily residential area which includes terraced housing reliant on on-street parking. There are also other uses in the vicinity, including a nursery, primary school and a number of businesses.

The appeal proposal would include no off-street car parking, with the result that residents would be likely to park on the streets surrounding the site. The level of car ownership of residents of an HMO would be likely to be relatively low, but given the number of bedrooms proposed there is a significant possibility that the proposal would increase demand for on-street parking spaces in the area.

At the time of my visit, on-street parking was available in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, I visited the site during the day whereas the peak demand for parking in this primarily residential area would be during the evening and at weekends. The timing of my visit may also not reflect the times of peak demand associated with the nearby primary school and nursery.

The Highways and Engineering Development consultee has stated that this area already suffers from a high-level of on-street parking owing to the terraced nature of surrounding properties. This is supported by a number of comments raised by residents and other highway users in the area which refer to problems of a lack of on-street parking. On that basis, the request from the Highways consultee for additional evidence on parking and transport issues, including a parking accumulation survey, is well-founded.

The appellant emphasises that the appeal site has good access to facilities and public transport, and that the development plan promotes the use of sustainable methods of transport. However, this does not mean that residents of the proposal would not own vehicles and seek to park them in the surrounding area.

The appellant indicates that they were not made aware that further highways evidence had been requested at the application stage. However, given that the Council was minded to refuse the application on other issues it was reasonable that it did not ask for the highways evidence to avoid wasted expense for the appellant.

The appellant refers to proposals for HMOs elsewhere where the Council concluded that due to the demographic of HMO’s and access to services then the proposals would be acceptable in terms of highways and parking issues. However, it has not been demonstrated that these proposals are a direct parallel to the proposal before me with regards to the context of the site (including uses such as schools and nurseries) and evidence indicating existing parking stress. In any event I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

I therefore conclude that insufficient evidence has been provided with regard to the effect of the proposal on vehicle parking in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the traffic and parking infrastructure requirements of [name]-C5 and JP-C8 of the PfE.

The proposal would include windows to main rooms which are significantly below the 21m main room window separation distances from nearby dwellings of the Council’s General Design Principles SPD. However, the majority of windows for the proposed bedrooms provide a restricted outlook, and on that basis would not harm the privacy of nearby residents.

A first floor bedroom window would face onto the rear of dwellings on [address]. Due to its elevated position and limited separation distance, this bedroom would enable intrusive overlooking of the rear amenity area and rooms of nearby dwellings, where residents could reasonably expect a greater degree of privacy compared to the front elevation. On that basis, I conclude that the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm to the privacy of residents of dwellings on [address].

The elevation facing onto [site address] would include a window for a kitchen/dining room on the ground floor and 2 windows for a bedroom on the first floor. However, the front elevations of existing dwellings on [site address] face directly onto the highway, and the separation distances that would result from the proposal reflect the separation distances between main elevations within this area of terraced properties. On that basis, the proposed ground floor kitchen/dining room would not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for nearby residents within the context of this area. Even allowing for the elevated view enabled by the first floor bedroom, I do not consider that the effect on privacy arising from a single bedroom facing onto the front elevation of nearby dwellings would be sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

A number of bedrooms and a store room would look onto [address]. However, I have previously concluded that bedroom windows of the type proposed would not enable an unacceptable degree of overlooking. The store room would only be used intermittently and would not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for residents on [address]. I also saw that [address] contained a number of commercial properties which would not be sensitive to overlooking from the proposal.

Notwithstanding my conclusions with regards to [site address] and [address], I conclude that the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm to the privacy of residents of [address]. The proposal would therefore conflict with the amenity requirements of Policy CG4 of the [name]. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing users of places.

The Council’s concerns on this matter relate to levels of domestic paraphernalia in the external area of the site. However, the proposal includes bin and cycle stores as well as internal store rooms and it has not been demonstrated that these are inadequate for the storage needs of the proposal. Concerns in relation to external storage and paraphernalia could also be addressed by conditions requiring a management plan addressing external storage and the submission of details such as screening and planting within the external amenity area. On that basis, I do not consider that the Council’s concerns in relation to domestic paraphernalia are justified. The proposal would therefore comply with the townscape and character requirements of Policy JP-P1 of the PfE and Policy RA2 of the [name]. The proposal would also comply with the Framework with regard to achieving well-designed places.

I am mindful of the benefits arising from the proposal. It would retain a characterful and imposing building in the area and would put this to a productive use. It would provide accommodation of a form for which there is a particular need and in an area where residents would have good access to services and facilities by sustainable means. However, these benefits would not outweigh the significant concerns I have identified in relation to the proposal.

The Council Officer Report refers a fear of crime which it considers to be unacceptable, although it also sets out that this would not be a reason for refusal in its own right. However, as I have dismissed this appeal I have not considered this issue further.

Notwithstanding my conclusions in relation to character and appearance, I conclude that the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of future and nearby residents and that insufficient evidence has been submitted with regards to vehicle parking. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole with regards to residential amenity as well as vehicle parking.

There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.