Appeal 6001531

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s description1 from the decision notice includes reference to a 2-storey rear extension. This is clearly shown on the plans before me and is referenced in the appellant’s submission. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The area is covered by an Article 4 Direction which removes permitted development rights for the change of use of residential dwellings (Use Class C3) into small HMOs (Use Class C4) and came into effect in June 2025. The removal of permitted development rights does not suggest that all HMOs are inappropriate, only that proposals should be assessed against the development plan and other material considerations.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the shared internal and external space; and • the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook. 1 Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to 5no. bed HMO (C4) together with erection of two storey rear extension

The appeal relates to a 2-storey end terraced property which lies at the corner of [address] and [address]. The area is characterised by long rows of terraced houses arranged in a traditional grid-iron pattern, predominantly constructed in brick, with stone and brick detailing to the front elevations. To the rear, terraces mostly follow a consistent building line with uninterrupted roof slopes, and enclosed yards or gardens bound by tall brick walls. Together, this uniform design and layout create a coherent townscape with a strong sense of place.

The proposed 2-storey extension would project from the rear elevation of the property, continuing the side wall along [address]. It would match the existing eaves height, with a slightly lower ridge line. Due to the property’s prominent position at the end of the terrace, and its location next to a large area of public open space, the extension would be highly visible from various viewpoints in the surrounding area.

The extension would create a comparatively long elevation facing [address]. When combined with its overall bulk, massing and prominent position, the development would appear overly dominant within the street scene. It would introduce a discordant feature into an otherwise uniform row of terraced properties, disrupting the harmonious townscape. As a result, it would erode the strong sense of place and fail to make a positive contribution to the local character or appearance of the area.

The appellant refers to guidance within the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD), which states that 2-storey extensions up to 4 metres in length on terraced properties will normally be considered acceptable. Although this guidance does not expressly exclude HMOs, it sits within a section concerned with impacts on neighbouring properties. The SPD also makes clear that extensions must not adversely affect the wider street scene or the character of the locality, noting that an extension may introduce a significant change to the established consistency of house types, with noticeable effects on local character.

Although the proposed extension would not exceed the SPD’s 4‐metre depth guideline, it would nevertheless harm the character and appearance of both the street scene and the wider area. This is particularly relevant given the coherent townscape formed by the consistent building lines and uninterrupted roof slopes, which are features that the proposal would disrupt. As such, the development conflicts with the SPD’s broader design guidance.

Although the full details are not before me, it has been brought to my attention that an appeal2 relating to a similar proposal at the appeal property was dismissed in 2024, a point in time when changing the use of the property from a dwellinghouse to a small HMO would not have required planning permission. The dismissed scheme, I understand, comprised a larger proposal that included a hip to gable extension and loft conversion. Whilst the scheme has seemingly been reduced in 2 APP/N4205/W/23/3334473 scale since the previous appeal, I still find that it would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area for the reasons outlined above.

I conclude that the proposed extension would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conflict arises with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE) and Policy RA1 of [name] (2011) (CS). Collectively these require, amongst other things, that proposals respect and enhance the character and identity of the locality, including the traditional grid-iron pattern.

The development plan policies cited in the Council’s decision do not set specific minimum standards for HMOs. However, Policy JP-P1 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, it is my understanding that this document, which has not been recently published, is currently being updated. Further, it is not referenced within relevant development plan policies. I therefore attribute limited weight to the document’s requirements. The Council has also referred to the nationally described space standard, although has relied on standards for single occupancy flats, which are not directly applicable to HMOs and thus of little relevance to the appeal proposal.

The Council’s main concern, in respect of the internal living space, relates to the size of the shared kitchen/dining room which is located at the rear of the building with access to the rear yard. 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. However, the size and layout of the kitchen/dining room, particularly the position of the rear door and kitchen units, would limit the space realistically available for furniture for dining and sitting. Moreover, the absence of any additional communal living area would mean opportunities for social interaction would be highly constrained, increasing the likelihood that residents would spend most of their time in their individual rooms, potentially leading to isolation. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide an adequate shared living environment and, as a consequence, would undermine the quality of life for future occupants.

The SPD recommends [address] metres of outdoor amenity space as a reasonable minimum. However, this standard applies to semi‐detached and detached houses, and the guidance recognises that such space is often not achievable for terraced properties. Although the proposal would reduce the amount of external space available, the property would operate as an HMO and is therefore unlikely to be occupied by a family or children, for whom a larger external space would be more critical. In addition, the site is located close to an area of open green space that future occupants could use. As a result, the reduced external space would not, in this case, lead to unacceptable living conditions for residents.

In light of the above, I conclude that, whilst adequate shared external space 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 shared internal space. Conflict therefore arises with PfE Policy JP-1 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is socially inclusive, comfortable and inviting with indoor environments offering a high level of amenity. Living conditions of [address]

The appeal property adjoins [address] (No 69) which has rear facing windows close to the shared boundary. The Council has set out that the extension would infringe on a 45-degree line taken from both the ground and first floor windows of No 69, resulting in a loss of outlook. However, the extension would be set in from the boundary and incorporate a hipped roof, both factors that would reduce its impact. As a result, any loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 69, including from their rear yard, would be limited. In the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause a significant loss of outlook or create an overbearing effect on the external amenity space at No 69.

The SPD advises that longer extensions may be acceptable where they do not cause overshadowing to main room windows in neighbouring properties, using the 45-degree line as a general guide. However, this guidance relates specifically to daylight impacts rather than outlook. Consequently, there would be no conflict with the SPD in respect of this main issue.

I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook. I therefore find compliance with PfE Policy JP-1 and CS Policy CG4, in respect of this main issue, which seek to ensure that, amongst other things, development is compatible with surrounding land users and occupiers, protecting and ensuring a high level of amenity.

The appellant has referred to a separate planning application which was granted permission for the change of use to an HMO and included extensions. I have limited details before me in respect of this and therefore cannot draw any direct comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour. The appellant has also raised some concerns regarding the approach of the Council to proposals relating to HMOs following the introduction of the June 2025 Article 4 Direction in

I have assessed the appeal on its own merits, and 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 character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupants.

Overall, whilst I find that the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address], harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area and as a result of unacceptable living conditions for future occupants. These harms constitute the overriding considerations in this case. Moreover, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.