Appeal 6001600

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal is considered alongside an appeal for similar development nearby at [address], Middlesbrough1. Though separate cases, the matters under consideration are alike and so there are similarities in the reasoning in both decisions. Nevertheless, each case has been considered on its individual merits based on the evidence provided and their separate circumstances.

The Council stated in its [name] that planning permission had been sought retrospectively. I saw on my site visit that interior work and refurbishments have been carried out, in line with the proposed floor plans. Nevertheless, the ground floor bedrooms remain vacant, and the evidence indicates that the property currently has just 2 tenants. The appellant thus maintains that no change of use has yet occurred. Notwithstanding this, whether the development has commenced or not is immaterial to my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme.

The Council has referred to emerging Policies HO8 and HO9 of the Middlesbrough Publication Local Plan March 2025 (the Publication Local Plan) in its evidence. The Publication Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on 30 September 2025. It is at an advanced stage of preparation, and in so far as they are relevant to the main issue in this appeal, the policies referred to are broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). They therefore carry significant weight in my assessment.

An Article 4 Direction was introduced on 8 February 2025 which removed permitted development rights for changes of use from dwellinghouses to small HMOs in Middlesbrough. The appellant contends that based on the date that Building Control approval was secured, and in line with prior advice from the Council, planning permission should not have been required. 1 Appeal Ref: 6001601

However, within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development requires planning permission. There is no evidence that an application under section 192 of the Act (certificate of lawfulness) has been made for this purpose. Ultimately, this appeal relates to an application for planning permission for the proposal described in the application form, and this is the basis on which my decision has been made.

The main issue is whether the development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal and external space provision.

The site comprises a traditional two-storey mid-terrace dwelling and its associated curtilage. It features a single storey rear offshoot and paved yard at the rear. The proposal seeks to change the use of the property to a 4-bedroom, 4-person house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Both the Council’s Interim Policy on the Conversion and Sub-Division of Buildings for [name] and Policy HO8 of the Publication Local Plan indicate that the conversion of properties to provide communal living space will be considered against the same criteria as the sub-division of dwelling houses into smaller residential units. The criteria include; the building is capable of providing the number of units or use proposed to an acceptable standard of accommodation.

These policies seek adequate privacy and amenity for future residents and make reference to national housing and space standards. The Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) deal with internal space in new dwellings and is suitable for application across all tenures. The standard requires that, to provide 1 bed space, a single bedroom has a floor area of at least 7.5m 2; and to provide 2 bed spaces, a double (or twin bedroom) should have a floor area of at least 11.5m2.

At ground floor, the appeal property features 2 bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms, a kitchen and a living room, connected by a long hallway. At just 7m2, both bedrooms fall short of the NDSS. The appellant contends that the floorspace of the ensuite bathrooms should also be counted in this floorspace. However, a bathroom clearly serves a different function to a bedroom, which should provide for private rest and relaxation. While the bathrooms would be available for the private use of occupants, they are purely functional rooms, which in this case do not benefit from natural light and which are both small spaces. Occupants are therefore unlikely to spend any significant time in them, unlike the bedrooms.

For both ground floor bedrooms, the dividing wall between the ensuite bathroom and bedroom curtails the floorspace of the bedroom and results in somewhat irregular shaped spaces. This has created small nooks that are of limited use and do not contribute to a sense of spaciousness, including under the stairs in the rear bedroom and behind the door in the front bedroom. The lack of space in the front bedroom is also illustrated by the ensuite door colliding with the bed when opened.

While the front bedroom benefits from a large bay window, this immediately overlooks the pavement and road outside providing limited privacy for occupants. The rear bedroom features a single window, albeit the outlook is into the heavily enclosed rear yard, where privacy would also be limited when the yard is in use by other occupants. Both bedrooms are fitted with blinds, but when drawn these further increase the sense of enclosure inside the rooms. Overall, this provides for a cramped and oppressive environment for the ground floor bedrooms.

The first-floor bedrooms are both larger and more regular in shape, with much better outlook and levels of privacy. These would meet the NDSS for single occupancy rooms and so are adequately sized for this purpose.

I saw on my site visit that the kitchen space is narrow, featuring just a small breakfast bar with 2 seats. The living room is accessed through the kitchen and features insufficient space for 4 occupants to comfortably use it at the same time. The outdoor space is also limited to a narrow, paved yard that would be dominated by cycle parking and bin storage. The limitations of the communal space internally and externally compound the harm arising from the lack of bedroom space.

My attention has been drawn to the Council’s HMO accommodation standards document (July 2024). The evidence indicates this guidance is used for licensing purposes. It thus does not form part of the development plan and holds limited weight in planning terms. Even so, while the ground floor bedrooms may exceed the stated minimum floor area for single bedrooms where a separate living area is provided, the separate living area in this case is itself inadequately sized, as set out above. This does not therefore lead me to a different conclusion.

The development would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal and external space provision. It would be contrary to Policy DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core [name] 2008 and the Interim Policy referred to above. It would also conflict with Policies HO8 and HO9 of the Publication Local Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that the layout of development is of high quality, the conversion of properties provides an acceptable standard of accommodation, and HMO accommodation provides a good standard of well proportioned, useable living space and amenity for occupiers. It would also conflict with Policy 135 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The proposal would reuse and refurbish an existing property in an area with good access to local services and public transport. I saw on my site visit that the internal works have been completed to a high standard. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the identified harm and development plan conflict arising from the failure to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers.

The site is within the [name] of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and [name] site. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and as advised by Natural England, a Competent Authority must consider the nutrient impacts of projects and plans which affect habitat sites. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

The Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework encourage Councils to take a positive approach in decision making and work proactively with applicants. The appellant’s comments on the level of engagement offered by the Council, its handling of the application and enquiries, and the conduct of the committee are noted. Nevertheless, this has no bearing on the planning merits of the proposal before me and thus does not lead me to a different conclusion on the main issue.

The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.