Appeal 6001686

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Lewes District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining footway with particular regard to the adequacy of storage for refuse and recycling; • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • Whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupants, with particular regard to provision for amenity space and cycle storage.

The appeal site comprises a 3-storey, mid-terrace dwelling within a predominantly residential urban area. The property is set back from a narrow footway, to provide a small front yard area that is used to store bins. A number of other properties along this street appear to have been converted to flats or used for other, intensive forms of housing such as houses in multiple occupation (HMO) uses. These uses manifest in the form of bins and other waste storage located, without screening, within the front yards and curtilage of some of the buildings on this road.

The appellant describes the existing use as an HMO with 6 bedrooms for 6 occupiers and the proposal is to intensify this use by permitting 3 additional occupiers within 3 other rooms. The Council has no in principle objection to the use as proposed. However, it considers that it would fail to meet technical criteria for waste storage, parking provision and amenity impacts as set out in Policy DM8 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2020) (‘LPP2’), which relates to proposals for HMOs.

Refuse and recycling are currently stored in the small front yard area and clear of the footway. A rear alley provides access to the rear yard; its entrance lies some distance from the building’s street door and slightly downhill on [name]. The front and rear yards are hard surfaced.

The appellant has provided amended estimates of waste likely to be generated by the development. These indicate a requirement for 6no 240litre bins, rather than the 3no larger bins shown on the plans. Setting aside the required quantities of bins, it is clear from the consultee comments that the Council collects several streams of waste (landfill, recycling, food) using different bin sizes. Details of how waste is anticipated to be split amongst those different receptacles are not before me and remain unclear.

The appellant suggests a condition requiring full details of the storage provision to be approved at a later date. However, the available space at the front yard is limited and I cannot be satisfied that this space is adequate to securely house all the required receptacles.

In the absence of sufficient space, at least some of the required waste storage would be likely to be permanently sited on the narrow footway adjoining the site. This would result in unacceptable street clutter and cause obstruction to users of the footway, resulting in material harm to the convenience of its users.

Moreover, users of the footway seeking to avoid this obstruction would be likely to step into the road, increasing the risk of conflicts between pedestrians and other road users. This would be particularly of concern for people using the footway with children in prams, wheelchair users or people with other mobility constraints. This would result in unacceptable harm to safety of users of the footway.

Sufficient space may exist for the required additional bins to be stored within the rear yard. However, it is unlikely that occupiers would bring bins through the property and, depending on the container’s weight and size, this may be impractical. Storing bins at the rear yard would therefore require ongoing management to ensure they are presented for collection, most likely involving dragging the receptacles over some distance and uphill on [name] to the front of the property and returning them after collections.

Occupiers of the appeal property would likely be unrelated, keep different schedules and be liable to change from time to time. It would be unduly onerous to rely on them to coordinate and undertake the collection arrangements described. Although occupiers could be made aware of their responsibility to maintain a clean environment, obligations made between the tenants and the landlord would not be enforceable by the local planning authority. For these reasons, a condition would not clearly overcome the harm identified.

If the appeal were to fail, the existing small HMO use would continue, and this represents the ‘fallback position’. However, no convincing evidence is before me which indicates that existing waste storage arrangements would have an equally or more harmful effect than the proposal on safety and convenience for users of the footway. As such, this factor has not led me to an alternative conclusion.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would result in harm to the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining footway with particular regard to the adequacy of storage for refuse and recycling. This would conflict with Policies DM8 and DM25 of the LPP2 and Core Policy CP11 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 1 [name] 2010-2030 (2016) (‘CS’). Amongst other things, those policies seek developments to ensure adequate provision for storage of recycling and refuse containers. There would also be conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that seek to minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, and to avoid unnecessary street clutter.

The 3 additional occupiers would reasonably increase the level of activity, comings and goings at the property. It is likely that these occupiers would have separate day to day living patterns, together with their own visitors and deliveries. Consequently, there would be potential for greater noise to be generated. Nevertheless, the appeal property would remain in use as a form of permanent residential accommodation.

The proposed increase in the number of occupiers would be slight within the context of surrounding, more intensive residential uses. Accordingly, I see no reason that the moderate intensification of this use would necessarily result in harmful noise and disturbance to occupants at the property or neighbouring buildings. My view on this is reinforced by the absence of substantiated evidence to indicate otherwise or to demonstrate that the property would not be well managed.

An accompanying Noise, Disturbance and Antisocial Behaviour Procedure sets out a detailed operating procedure for the management of the proposed use. It sets out how complaints about those matters would be recorded, categorised and acted upon. It also defines sanctions for breaching the Procedure, such as serving a notice to quit. Neighbourly behaviour from occupiers of residential development can be assumed for the purposes of the planning process. Accordingly, the reactive nature of the Procedure would not be a fundamental flaw.

This Procedure provides an appropriate framework for addressing noise and disturbance issues should they arise. Were the appeal to have succeeded, I would have been minded to impose a suitably worded condition to ensure the use operates in accordance with the Procedure.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore comply with the relevant provisions of Policies DM8 and DM25 of the LPP2 and Core Policy CP11 of the CS. Amongst other things, those policies seek developments to provide a satisfactory environment for existing and future occupants.

All existing and proposed bedrooms and the 2 kitchens and food preparation areas would meet the standards set out in the Lewes District Council ‘[name] for Houses of [name]. This document does not appear to have been prepared to assist with determining planning applications and HMO licensing is a separate regime that does not necessarily bear on my decision. Nonetheless, it does set out detailed technical criteria for acceptable standards of HMOs within the District by reference to the number of intended occupiers.

The Prescribed Standards make no reference to outdoor amenity space, such as gardens. The site has a rear yard that is similar in size to those found at adjoining properties and this would be available for use by occupants. Accepting that it is unlikely all occupants would wish to use the space at the same time, there would be a reasonable amount of space to allow for sitting out or the drying of clothes. In the absence of specific development plan policy requirements for internal layout or amenity space, I conclude that the provision to be made would be acceptable in these respects.

Cycle parking would be provided at a ratio of 1no space per occupant, using an existing rear projection and a new cycle‐stand enclosure, both accessed from the enclosed rear yard. In the absence of any evidence before me of minimum requirements, the quantity and type of storage would meet the needs of occupiers.

Concluding on this main issue, I find the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupants, with particular regard to provision for amenity space and cycle storage. There would be no conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DM8 and DM25 of the LPP2 and Core Policy CP11 of the CS. Amongst other things, those policies seek adequate provision for storage for bicycles and to provide a satisfactory environment for existing and future occupants, including adequate provision for private outdoor space and/or communal amenity areas.

The first reason for refusal given on the Council’s decision notice raises the concern that the proposed siting of refuse and recycling storage would result in visual clutter. The principle of using the front yard, without screening, would replicate the existing arrangements at the appeal property and this is an established feature on [address]. Notwithstanding my conclusions on the main issues, given the context this matter would not, of itself, cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Local planning permissions to which I have been referred at [address] (LW/22/0243) and at [address] (LW/24/0052) proposed smaller HMO operations compared to the use before me. The Avondale Hotel (LW/17/0929) concerned a significantly larger HMO. Those sites are all some distance from the appeal site, and I do not have details of their individual planning circumstances with which to draw any comparison to the appeal proposal. Given these differences, these examples do not provide a compelling reason to reach a different conclusion on the main issues.

Policy DM8 of the LPP2 contains a number of criteria. Whilst the proposal either complies with or does not engage a number of those, the absence of harm in these respects is not a benefit of the proposal. Moreover, no harm has been identified to local parking conditions or air quality. These have all formed neutral factors in my assessment.

The site would expand existing HMO accommodation within a settlement, making use of vacant space within a building that has been refurbished following long-term vacancy. The availability of this form of accommodation would be increased and provide an option that meets the needs of some single person households. Whilst not ‘affordable housing’ as defined in the Framework, this would nonetheless increase the choice and availability of lower cost housing locally. The future occupants would benefit from proximity to a town centre and access to public transport options such as Newhaven Town rail station. However, in view of the small scale of the proposal, its social, environmental and economic benefits carry limited weight.

On the other hand, the harm to the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining footway, with particular regard to the adequacy of storage for refuse and recycling, carries significant weight.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.