Appeal 6001524

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal relates to the change of use to a 7-bed House in [name] (HMO). Although the application form refers to Class C4, the number of bedrooms proposed means the development would not fall within this use class and would instead constitute a sui generis use. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

A potential revised plan1 has been submitted at the appeal stage, which illustrates the proposed kitchen/dining room to have switched positions with the proposed bedroom 2. However, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and, in the interests of ensuring that no one with a potential interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced, it is important that the plans considered at the appeal stage are essentially the same as those considered by the Council at the application stage. In my judgement, the revised plan, which incorporates a change to the position and makeup of the intended principal communal space within the property, evolves and materially alters the scheme that was refused planning permission. It also shows the replacement of a door with a window, and no corresponding amended elevation plans are before me for consideration. I therefore do not accept the revised plan and have determined the appeal based on the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy 1 [name]/PL/25/0002 A and functionality of the internal and external communal space and the outlook and privacy afforded to bedroom 2; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, in particular relation to the proposed HMO use.

The development plan policies cited in the Council’s decision do not set minimum standards for HMOs. However, Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE) requires all development to be socially inclusive, providing opportunities for social contact and support, and to be comfortable and inviting, with indoor and outdoor environments offering a high level of amenity.

Bolton Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Guidance and [name] document has been referred to in the appellant’s submissions. However, this document, which has not been recently published, and I understand is currently being updated, is not referenced within relevant development plan policies.

Communal space in HMOs is important to ensure that all occupants have the opportunity, should they choose, to dine and socialise in a comfortable shared environment, supporting their wellbeing and helping to reduce isolation. In this case, the shape and layout of the shared kitchen and dining room would significantly restrict the amount of usable space for dining and seating furniture as well as adequate circulation to meet the needs of up to 7 occupants.

In addition, the absence of any windows to this room would result in a dark, gloomy and uninviting environment and would fail to provide adequate standards of natural light to or outlook from this room. Combined with the lack of any separate shared living area, opportunities for social interaction would be highly constrained, increasing the likelihood that residents would spend most of their time in their individual bedrooms, potentially leading to isolation.

With regard to outdoor amenity space, the Council’s General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) recommends [address] metres for new dwellings. Although the external communal area would fall below this, the property would operate as an HMO and is therefore unlikely to be occupied by a family or children, for whom a larger outdoor space would be more essential. The site is also within a short walking distance of Queen’s Park, a substantial area of open green space available for use by future occupants. As such, this aspect of the proposal would not, in this instance, result in unacceptable living conditions.

Bedroom 2 would be served by a large bay window, including a door, facing directly onto a shared rear yard to be accessed via the shared kitchen/dining room. Whilst openings would provide adequate light and outlook, the bedroom’s position would allow other occupants to look directly into the room. The yard would be used for bicycle and bin storage but is also large enough for residents to potentially gather within and spend meaningful extents of time. In addition, one of the side windows is positioned close to the access route to the rear door, and its low cill height increases the likelihood of direct views into the room. This arrangement would not provide an acceptable level of privacy for the occupant of bedroom 2.

The potential for overlooking into bedroom 2 would likely cause any future occupants to take steps to protect their privacy, such as keeping blinds or curtains closed during daylight hours. This, in turn, would create poor living conditions, as the room would receive insufficient natural light and have a restricted outlook. In addition, the limited and poorly lit shared space within the HMO would likely encourage occupants to spend more time in their individual rooms, further exacerbating the negative impact on the future occupant of Bedroom 2.

The appellant states that the bedroom sizes would exceed nationally described space standards. However, these standards do not specify minimum communal space requirements, nor do they address matters of privacy, natural light, or outlook. As such, this does not alter my above assessments.

In light of the above, I conclude that, whilst adequate external communal space and satisfactory outlook from bedroom 2 would be provided, the proposed development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the internal communal space and the privacy afforded to bedroom 2. Conflict therefore arises with PfE Policy JP-P1 in so far as this policy seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development is socially inclusive, comfortable and inviting with indoor environments offering a high level of amenity.

The appeal relates to a mid-terraced property located within a predominantly residential area. This property, along with the other terraced properties in the row, benefit from rear yard areas backing onto Back Park Road. No external alterations are proposed to the building to facilitate the change of use. The Council’s concern, regarding the impact on the character and appearance of the area, relates to what it considers to be an over-proliferation of HMOs along this section of Park Road. They have set out that [address] immediately adjacent to the appeal site are existing licensed HMOs.

The development plan policies cited in the Council’s decision do not seek to restrict or impose limits on HMOs. Furthermore, the Council has not demonstrated how the addition of one further HMO would materially harm the character or appearance of the area, beyond asserting that it would contribute to a proliferation of such uses. Interested parties have raised concerns about increased activity, comings and goings, noise and general disturbance at anti‐social hours, suggesting that these effects would fundamentally alter the quiet residential character of the area. It has also been raised that the scale of the HMO would be out of keeping with the established pattern of development and would erode the prevailing character of the neighbourhood, undermining community balance and long‐term sustainability.

Whilst the comings and goings associated with the proposed use could be more frequent compared to a dwellinghouse use, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that this would result in harm to neighbouring residential amenity. Although an over‐concentration of HMOs can, in some circumstances, affect community stability and social cohesion, and lead to an imbalance in communities, I have not been provided with compelling evidence to show that this particular proposal would give rise to such harm.

Concerns have also been raised by interested parties regarding bin storage and collection, and the potential for these matters to negatively affect the character and appearance of the area if not managed appropriately. However, I am satisfied that adequate space exists at the rear of the property for bin storage, and appropriate management measures could be secured by a condition.

I conclude that, in the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the proposal would not have an unacceptable harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, in particular relation to the proposed HMO use. Therefore, with respect to this main issue, no conflict arises with PfE Policy JP-P1, [name] CG4 and RA1 and the SPD. Collectively these policies and guidance seek to ensure that, amongst other things, development is compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, does not generate unacceptable nuisance and noise, and proposals respect and enhance the character and identity of the locality.

The appeal site is located within the Queens Park Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Bearing in mind the nature of the proposed development, which does not include any external alterations to the building, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved. I note that the Council has raised no objections in this regard.

Details have been provided in relation to a similar development at the adjoining property, which also relates to a 7-bedroom unit. However, from the officer report, it is clear that No 161 was already in use as a 6-bedroom HMO, therefore the proposal was assessed on the basis of an increase in 1 bedroom. I also note that this was at a point in time when the PfE had not been adopted. In any event, I have assessed the appeal that is before me on its own individual merits and, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants. The appellant has also raised some concerns regarding the approach of the Council to proposals relating to HMOs following the introduction of an Article 4 Direction in 2025 and their communications with the Council. However, having assessed the appeal on its own planning merits, these matters do not alter my findings on the main issues.

The National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) emphasises a need to significantly boost the supply of housing. However, the proposal would replace an existing family house and would therefore not result in a net increase in residential units. I acknowledge that the scheme would contribute to the provision of smaller and potentially more affordable accommodation, and would be located within an existing town. However, any benefits to be drawn in this sense would not outweigh the harm that I have identified above in respect of the living conditions of future occupants.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.