Appeal 6002058

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change from C3 single family to [name] 9 bed HMO at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/1200/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

The number of persons in residence at the hereby approved House in [name] (HMO) shall not exceed 14 at any one time.

The appeal follows the Council's failure to determine the application within the prescribed period. However, the Council has indicated in its Appeal Statement, that had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have granted planning permission, subject to conditions.

There are a few issues raised in relation to this proposal by an interested party. The substance of this representation has informed the main issue of this appeal.

The evidence submitted by the appellant states that the development has been completed. I have considered the appeal on the basis that permission is being sought retrospectively for the change of use. The Council in its Appeal Statement considered the development in the same manner.

The main issue is whether the development provides acceptable living conditions for its occupants.

[site address] is a two-storey detached dwelling that lies within a generous plot. The development created nine bedrooms over two floors, each room with appropriate floorspace. Some bedrooms are en-suite, and communal bathrooms are provided on each floor. The internal communal space includes the kitchen and utility room, and the property’s garden is large.

Fire safety and facilities, including heating, are controlled by other legislation and therefore fall outside of the scope of the appeal.

Thus, the development provides acceptable living conditions for its occupants, in accordance with Policy SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016. Among other things this policy supports development of a high-quality design which has a limited impact on the amenity of occupiers of the site.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have undertaken some minor editing in the interests of precision and clarity.

To ensure that there would not be an unacceptable intensification of use, and that the offers acceptable living conditions for its occupiers I have imposed a condition which controls the occupation of the property to a maximum of 14 persons.

The existing block plan shows that cycle storage is available at the property, which the appellant confirmed can hold more than nine bicycles. Therefore, in this instance, I do not find that suggested condition 2 is necessary. The existing block plan shows the location of waste storage and therefore it is not necessary to require details of storage capacity. As such, I have not imposed suggested condition 3.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.