Appeal 6001901

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a House in [name] (HMO-C4) (6 units-6 person), installation of 2 no. rooflights to the front and 1 no. rooflight to the rear elevation, with associated refuse and cycle storage at [site address] , Sefton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01012, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal site is located in an area where an Article [address] that removes permitted development rights for change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to C4 small House in [name] (HMO). Consequently, planning permission is now required for this form of development.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. The Council has used an amended wording on the decision notice. This is more accurate and therefore I have used it in my formal decision.

Local residents have raised concerns regarding the current use and occupation of the property. However, this matter is beyond the scope of this appeal. I have made my decision on the basis of the evidence before me, which identifies the existing use as a C3 dwellinghouse. The Council made its decision on this basis, and I shall determine the appeal in the same manner.

During the course of the appeal, the appellant submitted a revised unilateral undertaking (UU) to address matters raised by the Council. I shall return to this later.

The main issue is whether occupants of the proposed development would have satisfactory access to outdoor amenity space.

The appeal property lies in the middle of a row of terraces in a predominantly residential area. South Park, shops and other facilities are located within a short distance.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “Conversions to Flats and Houses in [name]” (2023) (SPD) provides guidance for changes of use such as this proposal. It provides suggested standards for HMOs. The proposal meets or exceeds all of these except for the provision of outdoor amenity space. The SPD suggests a minimum standard of 10m2 per occupant. The proposal would provide 35.7m2, which is short of the required 60m2. There are no opportunities to increase this provision within the site, as the garden size is constrained by the dense grain of development in this residential neighbourhood.

In these circumstances, the SPD provides a cascade mechanism for when a lower level of outdoor amenity space would be considered acceptable. One of these requires that a commuted sum towards public open space is secured for proposals that are within [address]. The Council has confirmed that the property is within approximately [address], which is a main park. On this basis, the proposal could meet the guidelines provided for in the SPD, should a commuted sum be secured.

Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning obligations must only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. That the SPD makes provision for commuted sums does not, in itself, mean that the three tests are met and evidence must be provided for each case.

The Council has not provided any information to explain how the commuted sum for open space should be calculated. Neither has it provided evidence to demonstrate how South Park is unable to meet the needs of future occupants of the proposed HMO and how the requested monies would be spent to remedy this. As a result, I am not satisfied that the tests outlined in the Framework would be met.

The appellant has provided a revised UU in an attempt to satisfy the Council’s concerns and to meet the SPD requirements. There are some flaws in the drafting of the UU that would affect its effectiveness. However, these flaws are not fatal to the appeal, given my finding that a commuted sum does not meet the Framework tests. Accordingly, the UU has not been a reason to allow the appeal.

Although the property does not have a garden large enough to meet the minimum suggested standards for outdoor amenity space, it does nevertheless provide some outdoor space and, by the Council’s own admission, there is a main park within a short distance. The park is relatively sizeable and contains large areas of grass suitable for sitting out and informal recreation. Taken in combination, the on and off-site provision would be adequate for future residents’ needs.

I therefore conclude that occupiers of the proposed HMO would have satisfactory access to outdoor amenity space in the form of a small garden and local park. I find no conflict with Policy HC4 of the Local Plan for Sefton (2017), which permits proposals for HMOs where there is no significant harm to the living conditions for either the occupiers of the property or for neighbouring properties.

The Council has made reference to Policy BAAP19 of the Bootle Area Action Plan but did not include it in the reason for refusal. The Area Action Plan was not adopted at the time of the application but was in the latter stages of preparation. Policy BAAP19 introduces the requirement for changes of use, which result in the loss of a family home to market the property for a period of 6 months. Whilst the appeal property is currently in use, it is not clear what this use is or whether it is lawful. The property had been vacant for a number of years before this, and consequently it has been some time since it was a family home. In deciding not to find conflict with the policy, the Council factored in the benefits arising from bringing a long-term vacant property back into use. This was not an unreasonable approach to take. I take a similar view, mindful that HMOs make an important contribution to the housing mix.

Whilst the proposal may result in additional parking pressures, cycle storage facilities would be provided. These would encourage sustainable transport modes and reduce reliance on the private car. The Highway Authority did not raise any objection, and I have no reason to take a different view. The proposal would not increase on-street parking pressure to such an extent that would justify dismissing the appeal.

The proposal may result in additional waste generation. However, a planning condition could require the provision of appropriate waste and recycling facilities to manage this.

It has been put to me that the proposal would result in noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour. There are also concerns regarding potential future occupants. Such concerns can be relevant where there is an over-concentration of HMOs. However, the Council is not alleging an over-concentration in this particular case. The proposal falls well below the Council’s 10% HMO concentration threshold, which is in place to manage the levels and concentrations of HMOs to prevent any negative impacts. This suggests that the proposal would not give rise to the material harms often associated with an over-concentration of HMOs, such as noise and anti-social behaviour. The appellant is committed to maintaining a safe and respectful living environment and has submitted a management plan to demonstrate how this would be achieved. This would be part of the terms and conditions of tenant occupancy.

I have considered the planning conditions suggested by the Council against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary I have amended the wording to improve precision and enforceability.

I have imposed a condition addressing the time period for commencement of development for legislative requirements. In the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans. I have omitted the reference to the Management Plan as the contents relate to tenancy and would not be enforceable under planning powers.

A condition requiring the installation of sound insulation prior to use as a HMO is required to provide satisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the property and adjoining dwellings. A condition requiring secure cycle storage provision prior to occupation is necessary to encourage non-car based travel. A condition for the provision of a refuse store prior to use as a HMO is required to ensure satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and recycled materials.

The Council suggested a condition that limited the maximum number of permitted residents to 6. This appeal is for a change of use to a class C4 house in multiple occupation, which only permits a maximum of 6 residents. This condition therefore fails the test of necessity.

For the reasons given above 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: [name] HD00185-PL03 [name] and [name] and Section HD00185-PL04 Block and Location Plan HD00185-PL05

The property shall not be brought into use as a House in [name] until a scheme of sound insulation has been fully implemented in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details submitted pursuant to this condition shall include provision for the sound insulation of party walls and the sound insulation of internal separating walls between sensitive (bedroom) and non-sensitive rooms. Once completed, the approved sound attenuation works shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The property shall not be brought into use as a House in [name] until facilities for the secure storage of 6 bicycles have been provided in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved cycle storage shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The property shall not be brought into use as a House in [name] until the refuse store shown on drawing number HD00185-PL05 has been installed and made available for use. The facilities shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. ***END***