Appeal 6002108

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an amended parking and bin storage plan that indicates 6 parking spaces would be provided within the yard to the rear of the appeal property. This is an increase from the 4 parking spaces shown on the plans submitted with the application. The amended plan also shows 2 on-street parking spaces located on the highway directly outside the appeal property and relocates the bin store from the rear yard to its frontage. These amendments do not involve a fundamental change to the appeal proposal itself. The Council and interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on the amended plan as part of the appeal proceedings. No party would therefore be prejudiced by my consideration of this as part of the appeal.

I saw on my visit that the appeal property has been converted into two separate dwellings, which are currently occupied. From my observations on site, the conversion appeared to broadly reflect the submitted plans. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective conversion of the appeal property into two houses (hereon referred to as the permitted dwellings). This permission included a condition removing permitted development rights for a change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4) (hereon referred to as the disputed condition). The Council considers the disputed condition necessary to maintain highway safety and the free flow of traffic. In addition, although not set out on the decision notice as a reason for imposing the condition, the Council consider the disputed condition necessary to protect the character of the surrounding area. The appellant, however, contends it to be both unnecessary and unreasonable.

The main issues in this appeal are, therefore, whether the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable to maintain highway safety and the free flow of traffic, and protect the character and appearance of the area.

The permitted dwellings are located on a short loop of The Green that provides a service road to a small number of houses and businesses. Between the service road and main carriageway is an area of green open space. Both the service road and main carriageway are subject to 20-mph speed limits.

Very few of the houses along the service road benefit from off street parking. On my visit, I observed several vehicles parked on street in this location, most were partially mounted on the footway and others were parked very close to or at the entrance of the service road and on its junction with the main carriageway. Nonetheless, I did not observe a significant impediment to the flow of traffic. Vehicle movements were frequent but not constant, and vehicle speeds were low, especially along the service road, which is narrowed due to the parked vehicles. [name] recognise that my observations only represent a snapshot in time, there is nothing to suggest that the highway conditions that I observed were untypical.

The permitted dwellings are positioned at the entrance of the service road and its junction with the main carriageway. There is a shared access between them and the neighbouring property, No. 27 The Green, which provides access to a rear yard. This access is very narrow, and, as such, it would not be easy to manoeuvre larger vehicles along it.

The amended parking and bin storage plan shows 6 on-site parking spaces within this rear yard. Interested parties have raised concerns regarding whether the space in the rear yard would be sufficient to accommodate 6 parked vehicles with enough remaining space for vehicles to turn on site. From my observations, although I am satisfied that 6 parking spaces could be provided, the amount of circulation and manoeuvring space would be limited, particularly when all spaces are in use. In this scenario, it is unclear, from the evidence before me, whether sufficient space exists to enable vehicles to turn and exit in a forward gear. Consequently, vehicles would likely need to exit the shared access in reverse, potentially between parked vehicles. Given the limited width of the access, such reversing movements would be difficult and could give rise to conflict and highway safety concerns.

Overall, I am of the view that, at present, only four parking spaces could be accommodated within the rear yard while retaining sufficient manoeuvring space to enable vehicles to enter and exit in a safe and convenient manner. However, the restricted width of the shared access would likely deter regular use of these spaces by future occupants.

The Council’s Vehicle Parking Standards1 do not include specific provision for HMOs, and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate whether a small HMO in this location would generate higher or lower levels of car ownership than the permitted dwellings. Nonetheless, HMO occupiers typically live independently and exhibit a different pattern of use to a single household.

Unrelated adults are likely to have varied daily routines, visitors and deliveries, with limited shared activity, leading to increased comings and goings, and where vehicles are used these are likely to be separate. Although the permitted dwellings occupy a reasonably accessible location, there is no mechanism to restrict future occupants from owning vehicles and parking in the vicinity. In this context, I consider the parking standards for hostels to offer a more appropriate comparator.

Applying the maximum standard for hostels of 1 space per bedroom would equate to a requirement for 11 spaces if the use of the permitted dwellings was changed to an HMO. With only 4 spaces available within the rear yard, this would result in up to 7 vehicles being displaced onto the surrounding highway, not accounting for other vehicles, such as visitors and deliveries. Consequently, the proposal would lead to an appreciable increase in on-street parking pressure in the area.

There are no parking restrictions along the section of the Green where the permitted dwellings are located. Therefore, it would not be guaranteed that future occupants could park in the on-street spaces indicated on the updated parking and bin storage plan. Moreover, those spaces are shown at the junction of the service road with the main carriageway and may conflict with national parking guidance. While some more suitable and available spaces exist along [address], it is likely that future occupants with vehicles would follow the established parking patterns, parking on the service road or close to the junction, where their vehicle would be visible and access to it would be convenient. Given the limited width of the service road, vehicles would likely be parked partially on the footway to avoid impeding traffic flow.

I note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. However, this position relates to the permitted use of the dwellings as family houses. I also recognise that no collisions have been recorded directly outside the permitted dwellings, although there have been two incidents further along The Green, including one serious collision. Notwithstanding the generally low traffic speeds, an increase in on-street parking in the vicinity of the permitted dwellings would heighten the potential for conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. This would be particularly so where vehicles are partly mounted on the footway along the service road or parked close to its junction with the main carriageway, thereby impeding intervisibility between users. Such conditions may also hinder the free flow of traffic.

In conclusion, whilst I recognise that many dwellings in the area may benefit from permitted development rights allowing a change of use to a small HMO, the subdivision of the appeal property has resulted in two smaller dwellings which would each benefit from this right. On the evidence before me, there is a realistic prospect that, in the absence of the disputed condition, both dwellings could operate as HMOs. This would be likely to result in an appreciable increase in on-street parking demand, placing additional pressure on available spaces and giving 1 Solihull Local Development Framework Vehicle [name] and Green Travel Plans Supplementary Planning Document (2006) rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that these effects could be satisfactorily controlled or mitigated, either by the appellant or through the HMO licensing regime.

Accordingly, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, removing the disputed condition would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would therefore conflict with Policy P8 of the Solihull Local Plan: Shaping a [name] (2013) (Local Plan), which seeks to ensure that development proposals will not result in a reduction in safety for any users of the highway.

Therefore, in the interests of highway safety, I find that the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable.

The permitted dwellings are located within a built-up residential area where some noise and disturbance from domestic activity is to be expected. While the surrounding area is predominantly characterised by family housing, I saw on my visit that there is additional activity associated with the nearby businesses on The Green, adjacent open spaces, and passing vehicular and pedestrian movements.

The overall number of occupants would increase if the use were to change to an HMO; however, the difference compared with a family household would be limited. Although this would likely result in increased comings and goings, and some additional noise and disturbance, such effects would be modest and not to the degree that they would harm the character of the area, which is somewhat more active than a purely residential environment. Nor would these modest effects harm the living conditions of nearby residents

Accordingly, removing the disputed condition would not harm the character of the surrounding area or the living conditions of adjacent occupants, and would comply with Policies P14 and P15 of the Local Plan, which seek to protect residential amenity and conserve and enhance local character. The disputed condition is therefore not necessary or reasonable in this regard.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of highway safety. Its removal would result in conflict with Policy P8 of the Local Plan and the development plan as a whole. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.