Appeal 6001520

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing buildings, with 2 proposed replacement semi-detached residential buildings, each comprising of a 4-bed HMO, with associated gardens, boundary treatments, bicycle parking and bin store at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00635/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The site address above is taken from the appeal form, which is the same as the decision notice. This is a more accurate description of the site location than that given in the planning application form.

The description of the proposal above is taken from the decision notice. This differs from the planning application form, but it more accurately describes the proposed development.

Refusal reason 1 refers to the short-term tenancy of Houses in [name] (HMO) resulting in transient occupants with fewer connections to, or respect for the local area which can undermine the stability and cohesion of the area. Whilst the Council identifies that there are already three HMOs on [address] and 25 within the postcode area, it confirms that “this does not create a reason for refusal in itself”. As such, I have not considered this matter any further.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the safety of highway users with particular regard to car parking;  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions on neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise, disturbance and the availability of public car parking spaces; and  whether or not the proposal would increase the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Saved Policy AM15 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP) states that development proposals should be designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security. Saved Policy AM12 of the UDP seeks the provision of maximum levels of car parking for new developments. The Policy does not set minimum levels of car parking, other than for disabled car parking, which is not applicable to this proposal. The Council’s HMO Planning Guidance 2019 acknowledges that HMO’s tend to attract occupiers with lower-than-average levels of car ownership compared to the general population. The Guidance further states that, for HMOs in Wolverhampton, 0.5 car parking spaces per bedroom provides a general guide for likely demand.

There is no provision for off-street car parking included in this proposal. However, whilst the Council’s evidence refers to a requirement for four car parking spaces, the planning policies and guidance I have been referred to, as set out above, do not set a minimum requirement for car parking spaces.

Most of the existing properties on [address] do not benefit from off-street car parking. Parking on street is unrestricted, apart from on football match days when it is restricted to permit holders only. During my site visit I saw that there was a high uptake of on-street car parking in the vicinity of the appeal site, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road. However, from what I saw, the presence of parked cars did not impede the flow of traffic along [address], nor did I observe any car parking which was hazardous to the safety of pedestrians or vehicles. [name] acknowledge that my visit can only represent a snapshot in time, there is no substantive evidence that what I saw was not typical for the time of day.

It is the Council’s case that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable intensification of on-street car parking along [address]. The Council and interested parties assert that there is already insufficient parking available and that there is increased demand for parking, at times, from the [name] which is located at the corner of [address] and [address] East and the public house located at the other end of [address] at its junction with [address]. The Council states that this results in competition for parking spaces, which can result in reckless and overcrowded parking which can hinder traffic flow and create a hazard for pedestrians and highway safety. However, there is no evidence before me, such as a car parking survey or photographs showing evidence of the problem, to substantiate the Council’s case in this regard.

There are bus stops located close to the appeal site on [address] East providing regular services to the city centre and other destinations. Provision for cycle storage would further encourage sustainable modes of travel. As such, occupants would have alternative transport modes available to them, and they would not necessarily be reliant on a car for day-to-day requirements.

Even if there was additional demand for on-street car parking generated by the proposal, there is nothing before me to suggest that it could not be satisfactorily accommodated locally without harm to the free flow of traffic or the safety of highway users.

The Council’s concerns regarding the lack of car parking provision are not supported by the planning policies that have been submitted. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable intensification of on-street car parking along [address]. As such, I find that the proposal would not cause an unacceptable impact on the safety of highway users. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with saved [name] AM12 or AM15, as set out above.

[address], in the vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by two-storey terraced and semi-detached houses. Notwithstanding the presence of the nearby [name], the public house, and the appeal site itself, [address] has a predominantly residential character. The evidence submitted indicates that most of the properties on the road are single family dwellings.

The proposal is for two four-bedroom HMOs, with a total of eight occupants. The Council has indicated that the principle of residential use on the site, in the form of two single-family dwellings, would be acceptable.

HMOs are typically occupied by unrelated individuals, often with differing working patterns and social activities, which can contrast with the more coordinated activities of family households. That said, even allowing for the different occupancy characteristics, based on the evidence provided with this case, I find that the level of activity associated with eight occupants across the two proposed HMOs would not be materially greater than that which could reasonably arise from two single family dwellings. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable level of noise or disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

The Council makes specific reference to the effect of the proposal on the occupiers of number [address]. I appreciate that the proposed building would be closer to number 6 than any other existing property. However, there would be a gap between them therefore limiting the possibility for noise transmission. As such, I do not find the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

With respect to car parking, the Council contends that, without any off-street parking, the proposal would increase competition for public parking spaces for existing occupiers, undermining the harmony and enjoyment of the neighbourhood. However, as I have set out above, the Council has not substantiated its case regarding parking stress. Moreover, in respect of this main issue, the Council’s concerns regarding the lack of off-street parking provision are not supported by the planning policies that have been provided. Therefore, whilst the proposal may result in additional residents parking on the street, there is no substantive evidence that this would reduce the availability of public car parking spaces to the detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As such, I find no conflict with saved UDP Policy H6 which requires housing developments to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Refusal reason 1 also refers to saved UPD Policy D10. However, this policy relates to [name], and it has not been explained how it relates to this main issue. Accordingly, in respect of this main issue, I find that Policy D10 weighs neither in favour of nor against the proposal.

The West Midlands Police Design [name] objects to the proposal and submits data on crime and anti-social behaviour occurring within 0.25 miles of HMOs across Wolverhampton. However, the information does not demonstrate any direct link between these incidents and HMO occupants. Data for crime and anti-social behaviour within a three-mile radius of the site between April 2024 and May 2025 is also provided, but no analysis or context is offered to show that these levels are disproportionate for the area, or attributable to the occupants of HMOs.

Based on the evidence submitted, I am not satisfied that the proposed HMOs would increase the risk of crime or anti-social behaviour or increase the fear of crime. As such, the proposal would not conflict with [name] H6 or D10, which together require developments to take account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety.

The Council refers to the need for conditions relating to bin and cycle storage and the approval of materials. However, it has only provided wording for a condition requiring the details of cycle storage to be submitted. [name] agree that a condition is necessary to secure the provision of appropriate cycle storage, I do not find it necessary to require this condition to be pre-commencement. I have therefore amended the wording, having regard to the advice provided in the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed a condition relating to materials in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have also imposed a condition requiring the submission of details of bin storage for the same reason, as well as to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the storage of waste and recycling, in the interests of the living conditions of residents.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of clarity, I have imposed the standard time condition and a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos: P01, P02, P03, P04, P06 and ‘Block and Location Plan’

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

Prior to the occupation of the development, details of the secure bicycle storage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the occupation of the development, details of the bin storage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. End of Conditions.