Appeal 6001719

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Change of use from single dwelling house to small HMO (part retrospective). The dwelling has been in use as a HMO. Internal changes are proposed to meet current council regulations at [site address] , Redbridge, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1677/25, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: B-00; E-00; E-01; P-01 ([name]) and [name]: HMO Management Plan (May 2025); and [name].

All communal internal and external amenity space (including the kitchen / dining room, and the dining and sitting area at ground floor level and the study at first floor level), shall be freely accessible to all residents for the duration of the use, and shall be used for no other purpose.

Within 3 months of the date of this decision, a scheme for covered cycle storage for 6 bicycles and a timetable for its implementation shall be submitted to and approved by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, and the facilities provided shall be retained thereafter.

The main parties confirm that the use of the property as a House in [name] (HMO) has commenced and that the proposal is part retrospective. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue whether the proposed change of use to a small HMO would be appropriate having regard to its location, relevant development plan policies and its effect on the residential character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, end-of-terrace dwelling located on the southern side of Green Lane within a predominantly residential area. The London Borough of Redbridge is subject to an Article 4 Direction for Houses in [name].

The current proposal is for a small HMO for up to 6 people. The proposal follows two previous applications1 which sought to regularise the use of the site as a larger (sui generis) HMO. These applications were refusal by the Council, with application ref. 3990/22 also being dismissed on appeal2 on 20 February 2024.

[name] note these earlier proposals, this appeal is for a separate proposal for a small HMO which I have considered on its own merits. In this regard I note that the earlier proposals were assessed, in part, against Policy LP6 of the London Borough of Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (2018) (LP) which is only relevant to larger (sui generis) HMOs and, as the main parties confirm, is not applicable to the current appeal proposal.

The main policy that the Council consider the current proposal falls to be assessed against is Policy LP26 of the LP. Amongst other matters, Policy LP26 seeks to ensure that all development is of a high-quality design that respects the local character of the area and reinforces the positive and distinctive local character and amenity. It also requires development to provide a high standard of accommodation for housing and to ensure that development does not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (September 2019) whilst non statutory, also provides useful guidance. It sets out criteria for assessing planning applications for Houses in [name]. Whilst the Council states that the proposal confirms with most of the criteria, it would breach guidance that states that all HMO development should ‘not exceed 20% of all properties along any road, and only [address] of 5 units may be converted’. No such concerns were raised in relation to the earlier proposals for a larger HMO on the site3, despite the guidance being equally applicable to all proposals for HMOs. This therefore suggests to me that the guidance has been applied inconsistently or at least flexibly by the Council.

Green Lane is a long, relatively wide, busy road with terraced houses on both sides. The Council has not confirmed how many properties along the road are in use as a HMO but confirm that Nos 494 and 488 within the same block of eight properties as the appeal property are in use as a HMO. Their concern in this regard is that the proposal would lead to an over concentration of HMOs which they 1 LPA references: 3990/22 and 0878/24 2 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/W/23/3327576 3 LPA references: 3990/22 and 0878/24 consider are fundamentally different in their operations, feel and character to single family dwellings as a result of a transient population and that this in turn would erode the existing prevailing residential character of the area.

The row of properties within which the appeal property is located are similar in appearance with mainly hardsurfaced frontages providing parking spaces and space for bin storage. The existing HMOs at Nos 494 and 488 referred to by the Council appear to be visually indistinguishable from the other properties in the row in terms of their visual appearance. No changes are proposed to the frontage of the appeal property and the single front door and existing car parking arrangements would be unaltered. The property would therefore retain its existing residential appearance and character. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal would meet the high quality design objectives set out in Policy LP26 of the LP and as such would be unlikely to have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the area.

The pre-existing plans show that prior to conversion the appeal property was a four bedroom dwelling. I acknowledge that the occupants of the proposed small HMO would be likely to live largely independent of one another and that occupants may be more transient than a typical family-occupied house. However, in my judgment the use of the property for up to 6 occupants would generate a not dissimilar level of activity to a single family dwelling in terms of noise, comings and goings and the times when these movements take place.

Even if there were a small increase in movements, this would not, in my view, be appreciable given the context of the appeal site and the existing levels of activity taking place along Green Lane. In this regard, the concentration of HMOs within the immediate area would not be particularly apparent. I have no evidence before me to suggest that a more frequent change in occupancy compared to a family occupied dwelling would be harmful in any respect to the residential character of the area. The Council do not allege any loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers and I have no reason to dispute their findings.

I therefore conclude that despite not meeting all of the criteria set out in the SPD, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the residential character and appearance of the area and accordingly, would comply with Policy LP26 of the LP.

With regard to third party representations, a HMO Management Plan has been submitted which deals with issues such as refuse and recycling and preventing fly tipping. I have no evidence before me to suggest that levels of noise would exceed that associated with the use of the property as a single family dwelling.

I have had regard to the list of conditions suggested by the Council in the event that the appeal is allowed.

The standard implementation condition is not required as the development has already commenced. The approved plans condition is imposed for clarity. A condition requiring the retention of communal internal and external space is required to ensure satisfactory living conditions are provided for occupants of the scheme. A condition requiring details of the provision of cycle parking is necessary to meet the needs of the development and to promote sustainable modes of travel.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.