Appeal 6001601

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 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.

The Council stated in its [name] that planning permission had been sought retrospectively. While interior work and refurbishments have been carried out, in line with the proposed floor plans, the appellant’s statement states there is only 1 tenant currently. The appellant thus maintains that no change of use has yet occurred. I saw on my site visit that 2 of the rooms were occupied, while 2 appeared to be vacant. Irrespective, whether the development has commenced or not is immaterial to my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme.

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: 6001600

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. To the rear is a single storey offshoot and an ‘L’ shaped paved yard area. The proposed development would 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 and a kitchen connected by a hallway. At first floor there are a further 2 bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms and a living room. Both the ground floor front bedroom and first floor front bedroom meet the minimum space standards set out in the NDSS.

However, the rear ground floor bedroom and rear first floor bedroom both measure just 5m2, appreciably below the minimum size set out in the NDSS. The appellant includes the ensuite bathrooms in the bedroom floorspace measurement in their assessment. However, a bathroom clearly serves a different function to a bedroom, which should provide for private rest and relaxation. In this case, the bathrooms are purely functional rooms, which are very small and without windows. Occupants are therefore unlikely to spend any significant time in them.

The ground floor rear bedroom features a single window overlooking the heavily enclosed rear yard, where privacy would be limited when the yard is in use by other occupants. Likewise, the large bay window in the ground floor front bedroom that immediately overlooks the public road and pavement would reduce the privacy of occupants, particularly given the modest size of the room. Both windows are fitted with blinds, but when drawn these increase the sense of enclosure. Overall, the proposal provides for a cramped and oppressive environment for the rear bedrooms, and limited privacy for the ground floor front bedroom.

I saw on my site visit that the kitchen space is narrow, with no dining space. The living room is separate from this, on the first floor. It features insufficient space for 4 occupants to comfortably use it at the same time. The outdoor space is also restricted, comprising an ‘L’ shaped space with a significant proportion to be used for 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, excluding the ensuite bathroom floorspace, the rear bedrooms would fall short of the minimum floor area for single bedrooms where a separate living area is provided, and the separate living area in this case is itself inadequately sized. This does not therefore lead me to a different conclusion on the main issue.

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.