Appeal 6001555

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from Class C3 ([address]) to Class C4 ([name]) to provide 6 rooms at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM2025/00247, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises change of use from Class C3 ([address]) to Class C4 ([name]) to provide 6 rooms. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

As part of the appeal a [name] has been submitted restricting future occupiers from applying for resident and visitor parking permits. In this context, the Council has confirmed that it no longer wishes to defend the second reason for refusal. I have no reason to disagree with that finding.

At the time of my site visit, construction work was underway. Regardless of what has been constructed to date, my assessment is based on the plans before me.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the concentration of Houses in [name] (HMOs) within [address]; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a 3-storey semi-detached property with 8 bedrooms. It is located within an area which is residential in character. There are two existing licenced HMOs in the vicinity of the property at [address] and [address].

The appeal proposal is the change of use of the property into an HMO with 6 rooms. Given the number of proposed rooms, it would satisfy the criteria for a [name] under Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended).

Policy 10d) of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan) requires that proposals for new [name] do not lead to a concentration of HMOs in the vicinity where the cumulative effect of the HMOs harms the character of the area. Policy 10d) goes on to state the concentration which harms the area will be considered as where more than 20% of properties 100m either side of the proposal site are HMOs.

The proposed development is a [name]. Policy 10 is, therefore, not relevant in this case, even though I acknowledge that the Council has introduced measures, including an Article 4 Direction, to control the concentration of [name] with the same broad aim as Policy 10d). In any event, the Council calculates that the percentage of HMOs within 100m of the appeal site falls below the 20% threshold in Policy 10.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the concentration of HMOs within [address]. As such, the proposal is not contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy 10 of the Local Plan which seeks, among other matters, to avoid the overconcentration of HMOs.

The Council raises concerns that the proposed development would, by reason of the number of occupiers, lead to increased noise and disturbance. However, the proposal before me is for a 6-bedroom HMO. This is compared to the 8 bedrooms the property has historically provided. I acknowledge that the property is not currently occupied. Nonetheless, in the context of the reduction in the number of bedrooms, it has not been demonstrated that an increase in noise and disturbance is likely.

Residents of neighbouring properties raise concerns about anti-social behaviour. However, I have no evidence before me to suggest that future occupiers of the proposed HMO would be likely to cause any additional noise or disturbance, or adversely affect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties in any other regard, compared to occupiers of the existing property. Moreover, the proposed HMO would be subject to a Management Plan, a copy of which is before me. From the submitted Management Plan, it is evident that a procedure would be in place to deal with any anti-social behaviour that arises.

I appreciate the frustration of local residents with regard to noise and disturbance during construction, as well as associated health and safety risks, however refurbishment works would, by their very nature, be time limited. They would not, therefore, lead to a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties in the long-term.

I observed on site that there is currently no boundary fence separating the garden of the appeal property from that of No 67. A condition relating to boundary treatment will ensure that fencing is erected and separate rear garden spaces retained for each property, thereby reducing the risk of cumulative use by occupiers of the properties leading to increased noise and disturbance.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. As such, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policy 29 of the Local Plan. Among other matters, this policy seeks development which does not adversely affect the amenities of those occupying adjoining or nearby properties, including taking into consideration noise.

A signed [name], dated 22 January 2026, has been submitted by the appellant. This would secure the prohibition of future occupiers from obtaining car parking permits. Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations set out three tests that planning obligations must meet. Firstly, they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Secondly, they must be directly related to the development. Thirdly, they must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I am satisfied that the planning obligations would meet the requirements of the Framework and the CIL Regulations.

Notwithstanding concerns by local residents regarding the effectiveness of the current parking restrictions, I am satisfied that this Undertaking, together with the parking space to be provided on site, would adequately address the potential for the proposal to increase pressure on parking in the local area. I note that the Council did not raise any concerns in this regard either.

In respect of the impact of the proposed development on other infrastructure, I note that the Council has not raised any concerns. I see no reason to disagree with this finding as there is no evidence before me to suggest an increased demand for services would arise from the development, particularly given the proposal would reduce the number of bedrooms.

While occupancy levels of the proposed HMO cannot be controlled through a planning permission, neither can the occupancy of the existing dwelling. Given that, as noted above, the proposal would reduce the number of bedrooms from 8 to 6 there is nothing in the information before me to suggest that occupancy levels would be greater following the proposed development compared to those of the house in its historic form. These matters do not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

From the plans before me, it is evident that no external changes to the property are proposed. In this regard, the proposal would not result in additional overlooking of neighbouring properties compared to the existing conditions. Additionally, hung tiles on the front elevation of the property are being retained, as I observed on site.

Representations from local residents suggest that the appeal property has historically been in use as a single dwelling. Regardless of the validity of these comments, I am assessing the proposal before me for a 6-room HMO. I have reasoned above why I have not identified any harm arising from the proposal following consideration of all the information before me, including all comments provided by occupiers of neighbouring properties. The previous use of the property does not, ultimately, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

My attention is also drawn to suggested alternative uses of the appeal property, including retention as a single dwelling. I note that the Council raise no objection to the loss of the existing 8-bedroom home, which the Council identify is not the main kind of family housing sought in the Borough. I see no reason to disagree with this finding.

Representations from local residents have suggested that the property should be sub-divided into self-contained flats. They have also suggested a need to assess the proposal as part of a combined scheme, including the approved plans for the conversion of No 67 into an HMO, and a need for accessible bedrooms. However, I am assessing the proposal before me, my assessment of which has not identified any harm as I have reasoned above. I also note that the Council has not raised any concerns regarding the standard of the proposed accommodation. These matters do not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

Neighbours highlight that trees have been removed from the rear garden of the appeal property. Concerns are also raised about the condition of the garden. However, as the site is not located within a Conservation Area and is not subject to any Tree Preservation Orders there are no restrictions upon the clearance of the rear garden. The proposal before me does not include any proposals in relation to the garden. These matters are, therefore, outwith the matters for my consideration.

I acknowledge the representations received relating to damage to property values and the EPC rating of the property. The effect of a development on property values is not a planning consideration. EPC ratings are covered by separate legislation and are not a planning consideration. Neither of these matters has led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

Representations were made to the effect that the rights of adjoining occupiers under Article 8 as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 would be violated if the appeal were allowed. I have found that the proposed development would not result in an increase in disturbance such that neighbouring occupiers would suffer unacceptable harm to their living conditions, particularly given that the provision of boundary treatment separating the garden of the appeal property from that of No 67 would be secured by condition. The development would not conflict with Policy 29 of the Local Plan. I am satisfied that a grant of planning permission would not unacceptably interfere with the rights of neighbouring occupiers to a private and family life and home. It is proportionate in the circumstances to allow the appeal.

The Council has provided a list of conditions that it suggests should be applied in the eventuality that the appeal is allowed. I have assessed those, and others recommended by statutory consultees, with reference to the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of some suggested conditions without altering their fundamental aims.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period (condition 1), I have imposed conditions requiring adherence to the approved plans and [name] (conditions 2 and 3). These conditions are imposed for certainty.

A condition relating to cycle storage (condition 4) is necessary in the interests of providing appropriate cycle parking and to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

A condition relating to refuse and recycling storage (condition 5) is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the property.

A condition relating to boundary treatments (condition 6) is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Conditions relating to solar PV panels and compliance with the submitted Sustainability and [name] (conditions 7 and 8) are necessary in the interests of sustainability. However, as development has already commenced, I have amended the Council’s suggested wording to require submission of details of the solar PV system for approval prior to occupation.

For the reasons given above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that 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 1010, 1030, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 3030, 3110, 3112, 3113, 1210 and 3111.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] prepared by DTM Planning with the specified fire safety measures provided before the approved development is occupied and retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted full details of the secure cycle storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle storage facilities shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the approved development is occupied and retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted full details of the refuse and recycling storage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse and recycling storage shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the approved development is occupied and retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the position, design, materials and type of boundary treatment/means of enclosure to be erected shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the approved development is occupied and retained thereafter.

Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted details of the proposed solar PV system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority including: (i) amended roof plans showing the number of solar PV panels and the total area of the proposed solar PV array; (ii) the power output of each panel and confirmation of the electricity that the solar PV array will generate; and (iii) confirmation of the CO2 savings expected to the delivered.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Sustainability and [name] prepared by [name] dated 10 July 2025 together with the approved solar PV details. Prior to the occupation of the approved development ‘as-built’ Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) outputs shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the development has achieved the targeted reduction in CO2 emissions.