Appeal 6002162

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. The Council amended the description during the determination of the planning application to “construction of a rear dormer extension, including roof lights to the front, removal of chimney stack and change of use from a two-bed dwelling (Use Class C3) to a large HMO ([name])”. However, it is clear from the appellant’s evidence that the amended wording was not agreed and that their intention is for the house in multiple occupation (HMO) to be limited to a total of 5 people. The evidence does not indicate that the appellant’s intention was to apply for a large HMO (a sui generis use), and I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of the proposal being for a C4 use.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family-sized homes in the Borough; • whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants of the development, with regard to privacy and noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, end-of-terrace dwelling. The existing dwelling has two bedrooms at first floor level. In addition to the bedrooms and bathroom, the dwelling has a small room to the front of the building, which is labelled as a study on the existing first floor plan.

The proposal includes the change of use of the dwelling to a small HMO for up to five persons. Policies S1 and H1 of the Newham Local Plan 2018 (NLP) encourage the provision of mixed and balanced communities and the protection and replacement of family housing lost to conversion. Policy H3 of the NLP states that HMOs should be purpose-built or converted from premises other than family-sized dwellings, subject to Policies H1, H3 and H4, the latter of which states that the Council will specifically protect 3 and 4+ bed family housing. In adopting this approach, the Council recognises that the greatest housing need within the Borough is for family-sized dwellings.

The existing dwelling includes two larger bedrooms and a study at first floor level. While small, the study room could be used as a third bedroom. Moreover, given the overall floor area of the building, which includes the spacious ground floor kitchen and dining room, as well as the external private amenity space, the existing dwelling provides good quality accommodation suitable for occupation by a family.

The conversion of 3+ housing may be appropriate under Policy H4, subject to the defined circumstances set out in paragraph 2. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the site is located in a town or local centre, or along those sections of quality [name] or [name] within 400m of town or local centres. Moreover, the existing dwelling is not located above an existing, occupied commercial unit. In addition, there is access to external private amenity space to the rear of the dwelling. Consequently, the development would not meet the requirements of Policy H4.

The appellant has drawn my attention to proposals for changes of use of housing to HMOs at [address] and [address]. In both cases, the Council acknowledged that the properties did not comprise family-sized housing. While the Council found conflict in respect of the location of the site, given the limited details before me, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are similar to the appeal proposal before me. In any event, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits and with appropriate regard to the development plan and any material considerations.

I conclude that the proposal would result in the loss of a family-sized house and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the supply of family-sized housing within the Borough. The development therefore conflicts with Policies S1, S6, H1, H3 and H4 of the NLP and Policies GG4, H8 and H10 of the London Plan 2021 (LonP), which collectively seek, amongst other things, to support mixed and balanced communities and prevent the loss of family-sized housing.

The Council refers to Policy H8 of the LonP. However, as this policy relates to the loss of existing housing through estate redevelopment it is not directly relevant to this main issue.

The proposal includes bedrooms at ground floor level, including those identified as Bedroom 1 and Bedroom 2. The bedrooms would be accessed from the ground floor hallway and would be close to the kitchen and living/dining room. In addition, Bedroom [address] to the entrance to the building.

The position of Bedrooms 1 and 2 adjacent to the entrance and communal kitchen and living/dining room would expose occupants of the rooms to a higher level of noise and disturbance than those at first floor level. Nevertheless, given that the HMO would be restricted to five persons, the amount of noise and disturbance generated within the communal areas and through comings and goings at the entrance would not be significant such that the effect would be demonstrably harmful. Moreover, the enclosed nature of the bedrooms would ensure that future occupants of Bedrooms 1 and 2 would be provided with an appropriate level of privacy.

I conclude that suitable living conditions would be provided for future occupants of the development, with regard to privacy and noise and disturbance. The development therefore accords with Policies SP3 and H1 of the NLP, which collectively seek to ensure comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and deliver appropriate privacy and amenity.

The Council has referred to SP1 of the NLP and Policy D4 of the LonP. However, as these policies relates to strategic principles and the spatial strategy for borough-wide place-making and design analysis, they are not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The site is within a primarily residential area consisting of predominantly two-storey terraced properties. There is a large educational institution on the opposite side of [address], which also includes commercial premises close to the site. The entrance to the building is positioned to the side of the front elevation, adjacent to the site boundary and the entrance of the neighbouring property.

The proposal is for the change of use of the existing dwelling to a small HMO for a maximum occupancy of 5 persons within 5 bedrooms. The greater capacity would be likely to increase activity at the site given that occupants would live largely independently, including from more people coming and going at the front of the site. Nonetheless, a greater number of occupants is not, of itself, evidence that a small HMO would cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties or to the character of the area.

The proposal would intensify the residential use at the site. However, this would not lead to material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the location of the site within an area primarily comprising dwellinghouses would not fundamentally alter the character of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise and disturbance. The development therefore accords with Policies SP2, SP8 and H3 of the NLP and Policies GG1, GG3 and D14 of the LonP, which collectively, amongst other things, seek to ensure that Newham is an attractive place to live, creating healthy and quality neighbourhoods and ensuring neighbourly development and reduce and mitigate noise and protect quality of life.

The Council has referred to SP1 of the NLP, however as this relates to strategic principles and the spatial strategy for borough-wide place-making, it is not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The appeal site is within the 6.2km Zone of Influence of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Therefore, had I concluded that the development would be acceptable in terms of the main issues set out above, it would have been necessary to investigate the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC as part of Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. However, given the harm identified above and that I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not considered this matter further.

The appellant states that the site is within walking distance of [name] station and the facilities and services close to the station, so that a more efficient use of housing stock in this location is a benefit. The provision of an affordable type of housing and a more efficient use of stock are also benefits, but these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above in respect of the loss of family-sized housing.

There is legislation that permits the change of use of a dwelling to a small HMO. However, there is an Article [address], and it is not my role in the context of a s78 appeal to reach a finding on this. The effect of the direction is to require an application for planning permission and my determination of the appeal is made in this context. I have considered the proposal on its planning merits.

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 given above the appeal should be dismissed.