Appeal 6001951

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs in relation to this appeal was made by the appellant against the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is whether the property is suitable for use as a house of multiple occupation (sui generis use) with particular regard to its location and whether it would accord with local policy.

The appeal property is a large, detached house on the eastern side of [address]. It is a wide, suburban street of properties of a similar scale and form. No. 69 is set back and slightly elevated from the road, with an in/out access drive arrangement. The existing integral garage is proposed to be converted, and an orangery added to the rear.

Policy H10 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (Local Plan) relates to the loss of housing and conversions, with sections c and d specifically relating to large houses in multiple occupation (HMO). There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would accord with section d, which places a limitation on the concentration of HMOs, and from the information before me, there is only one other HMO within the 100m vicinity.

It is suggested that section c is not applicable, as the existing property is a dwellinghouse (C3) and not an existing HMO. Section c sets out an inclusive list of criteria for large HMOs under which they would be permitted. It does refer to extensions where there would be an increase in residents, but it also refers to “Proposals for”. While acknowledging that there is a level of ambiguity to the wording and the Council’s officer report advises that section c is not applicable, in my view, and having regard to the objectives of the policy, the proposal falls to be considered against the list of preconditions set out under section c.

In reaching my view, I am supported by the preamble to the policy (paragraph P10.3), which explains that there are limitations to the Council’s powers in relation to HMOs for 3 to 6 people, but that for larger HMOs, a policy is still necessary. The conversion to a large HMO constitutes a change of use and would function at an occupancy level exceeding that of a family home (C3 use) or a small HMO (C4 use). The initial change is likely to require the broadest assessment, and the section c criteria include the type of property and locational factors, including being within an Area of [name] (API). The appeal site is not located within an API and therefore does not accord with criterion c (ii).

Based on the appellant’s approach, establishing a large HMO would not require any assessment against the various section c criteria, with that only applying to any subsequent increases in occupancy. Such an application of the policy, to my mind, would not reflect the intended requirement to assess the suitability of properties seeking to operate as large HMOs. Additionally, the consideration against section c does not render section d superfluous, as it addresses the culmination of HMOs rather than the conditions for individual properties and is not applicable to established large HMOs.

Moreover, whether section c is applicable or not, the policy as a whole seeks to manage the types and tenure of homes across the Borough and to limit the impacts of more intensive uses (conversion and HMOs), directing them to the most appropriate properties and sustainable locations.

[address] is a low-density area of large family houses with a quiet, pleasant character. The area has a low PTAL rating of 1A, poorly served by public transport, and therefore would not be a preferable location for higher-intensity developments. While acknowledging that HMOs provide an important role within the housing market, and the general housing need, there is no evidence before me of a specific need for an HMO in this area or a level of demand beyond the APIs.

The appellant advises that he would be living in the property with a family member and would facilitate appropriate management. There are, however, no specific details or management plan before me. While acknowledging the appellant’s intentions and personal circumstances, any planning permission runs with the land, and I am determining the development for which planning permission is applied for.

No.69 is a large property, and there is nothing to suggest that it would not provide a good standard of accommodation, notwithstanding the need for HMO licensing and fire regulations, which are separate requirements. However, the proposed layout does not indicate that all bedrooms would have direct access to the shared facilities, with access from bedroom 9 to the kitchen and other reception rooms via another bedroom.

The individual bedrooms are large, with most of a sufficient size for double occupancy. As a result, the overall number of residents could be substantial. It is indicated that the existing property has 8 bedrooms, but as a family home, the number of available bedrooms does not necessarily reflect occupancy levels and may include dependants. As an operational HMO, room occupancy would be desired, and even with a single occupant per room, 9 independent adults living at [address] and goings) compared to a family home.

The appeal site is a large plot and would offer a spacious garden area. The Council has found that there would be no direct impact on the neighbours' amenities and given the scale of the property and the relationships, I have no reason to disagree.

The frontage can accommodate 4 parking spaces, although the arrangements lack clarity, with the bin store indicated in the same location as one of the parking spaces. This also appears to conflict with the existing projection to bedroom 8, and the bins would be sited immediately adjacent to the property in front of several windows. Given the capacity of the bins and the covered cycle storage required for the proposed increase in occupancy, it is unclear whether these requirements could be accommodated without altering the existing driveway layout or affecting the property's visual appearance and the street scene.

Due to the location, with limited access to facilities and public transport, the number of vehicles associated with the proposed development could be disproportionately high. The large properties along [address] generally have spacious driveways that accommodate their parking requirements. This is reflected in the [name], which indicates a low level of on-street parking and a large number of available spaces. Notwithstanding the capacity for additional parking, the proposed scale of occupancy, together with the associated parking needs and increase in activity, would be out of keeping with the suburban character of [address].

For the reasons set out, the appeal property is not suitable for use as a 9-bedroom house of multiple occupation (sui generis use), having regard to its location and local policy. It would therefore fail to accord with Policy 10, which requires HMOs to be within the API, that the layout provides for joint access to the shared facilities and does not detract from the character of the area. There are also insufficient details to demonstrate that the requirements for parking, bin and cycle storage can be accommodated.

The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 10 of the Local Plan as a whole, which seeks to manage the provision of large HMOs and the loss of residential accommodation, ensuring that the right homes are available for the current and future residents.

I have given consideration as to whether a condition restricting the level of occupancy could be imposed. However, there are other unresolved matters relating to the internal and external spaces, and any cap may not align with the appellant’s requirements for the property and would not reflect what has been applied for.

In coming to my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s officer report, which recommended approval, and the representations made by interested parties. The Council has raised no concerns regarding the proposed addition of a conservatory or the garage conversion, and neither alteration would harm the property's appearance. They do, however, form part of the overall scheme to create a 9- bedroom HMO.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.