Appeal 6002215

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I observed that works had commenced. However, there are differences between what is present on site and the proposed plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the proposed plans.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers, with specific regard to private living space, outlook, noise, and privacy, and neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and privacy; • Whether the use of the appeal property as an HMO would be acceptable in terms of its effect on the housing mix within the borough; and • The effect of the proposal on green infrastructure.

The appeal site forms a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The appeal proposal would involve its conversion to a House in [name] (HMO). The appeal site is located within an area the subject of an Article 4 Direction. This means that planning permission is required for the change of use of a property to a Use Class C4 HMO. The Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (the [name]) indicates that this has been in effect since November 2022.

Policy BH7 of the London Borough of Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (the Local Plan) is supportive of the construction and conversion of properties to non-self-contained or self-contained residential accommodation with shared facilities, such as HMOs, subject to a number of criteria.

Criterion b) of Policy BH7 requires proposals for HMOs to be of an acceptable quality, meeting appropriate standards for the needs of its occupants. The HMO SPD states that given the importance of bedrooms as private spaces to HMO occupants, a minimum floor area for a single room of 7.[address] metres is required. Whilst the proposal would provide a large communal living area, this would not be comparable to the private spaces bedrooms provide the occupiers of HMOs.

There is dispute between the main parties over the floor area of bedrooms 2 and

Bedroom 5 is located within the roof space and therefore the ceiling height would be reduced for a large proportion of the rooms [address] metre footprint. The HMO SPD requires that overall, 75% of the bedroom has a minimum ceiling height of 2.14 metres. Whilst the appellants contend that bedroom 5 has sufficient useable area, there is no detailed evidence before me to substantiate this. As such, I cannot be sure that bedroom 5 would provide an adequate usable private space for future occupiers. Further, given the restricted ceiling height and the absence of furniture required for day-to-day living illustrated on the plans, I cannot be sure that bedroom 5 could accommodate such facilities.

The Council also raises concerns regarding the outlook from bedroom 5. The plans show two small skylights within the roof slope located close to the ridge. Their size and elevated location would provide little in the way of views out of the room, resulting in an oppressive environment and an unacceptable effect on the outlook of future occupiers.

The Council contend that, based on the plans, the footprint of bedroom 2 is 6.[address] metres whereas the appellants maintain that this is the result of a scaling error and the actual footprint is 7.[address] metres which is annotated on the plans. The Council have provided no response to this. As such, there is nothing before me to suggest that the footprint of bedroom 2 is below what is identified within the submitted plans.

Whilst the submitted drawings may not show communal washing and drying facilities required by the [name], the proposed communal areas are of a size that could accommodate such facilities.

Within a residential area, criteria c) of Policy BH7 of the Local Plan requires proposals for HMOs to include management arrangements so as to not unacceptably impact the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The explanatory text expands on this, giving the example of standards of behaviour expected of tenants to reduce potential for persistent anti-social behaviour.

The appellants have submitted an HMO Management Plan including provisions for tenant background checks, monitoring behaviour, and anti-social behaviour prevention so as to not unacceptably impact the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The details provided appear commensurate with the use and size of the development. While the document refers to a roof terrace which does not form part of the proposal, the appellants have acknowledged that this is a drafting error. [name] minded to allow the appeal, a condition could be imposed to require the submission and implementation of an HMO Management Plan without the aforementioned drafting error that would comply with local policy and guidance.

The Council’s delegated report states that noise levels generated from six persons as proposed is not considered to detrimentally impact neighbouring living conditions over and above the existing use as a dwellinghouse. [name] minded to allow the appeal, a condition could be imposed, limiting the occupancy to no more than six individuals. Therefore, in combination with the aforementioned HMO Management Plan, the use of the proposal as an HMO would not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regard to noise.

The proposal includes the use of an outbuilding as an office with the inclusion of toilet facilities. The building can be accessed via the side of the appeal property or from its rear garden. The council contend that the proposed office would be for commercial use which could result in a loss of privacy and generate noise and disturbance for neighbouring occupiers including those of the appeal property.

The outbuilding is single storey with no windows directly facing those of neighbouring dwellings including the appeal property. The office building forms part of the appeal site, having a close relationship to the main building. While toilet facilities are included, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the outbuilding would be utilised in a manner that is not incidental to the main building, and its use would fall within the controls of the HMO Management Plan. I am therefore satisfied that there would be no undue harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal property or neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to noise and privacy.

Overall however, for my reasons above, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers with specific regard to private living space and outlook of bedroom 5. As such, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies BH7 and DMP1 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, require development to provide high levels of internal amenity, and meet appropriate standards for the needs of its occupants.

Criteria d) of Policy BH7 requires proposals to demonstrates that there is a specific Brent need for the particular use. The HMO SPD acknowledges the important part HMOs play in housing people within the borough. Nonetheless, it additionally highlights the need for family accommodation (three bedroom dwellings or larger) which comprises 54% of all need for additional dwellings within the borough. In accordance with the SPD therefore, the unmet need for family homes within the borough should be balanced against the quality of the HMO being provided.

The quality of private living space for future occupiers, as detailed above, is not sufficiently high. Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of only one larger dwelling, having regard to the advice in the [name], and the significant need in Brent for family housing, I find that the proposal would not appropriately meet a specific Brent need.

Whilst the property could revert to a C3 use in the future, no mechanism has been put to me to secure such a change, and I therefore afford this possibility limited weight. Moreover, whilst the proposal may be located within a sustainable location and make efficient use of a small site, these features are also true of the existing family home. Any benefits in this regard therefore also carry limited weight.

As such, the proposal would not be acceptable development, having regard to housing mix within the borough and the development plan’s approach to the provision of HMOs. It would therefore conflict with Policy BH7 of the Local Plan.

Although the Council has also found conflict with Policy BH11 of the Local Plan in respect of this main issue, this policy relates to the conversion of family sized dwellings into two or more other dwellings, and not into an HMO. It is therefore not determinative in this case, and I have not considered it further.

Policy G5 of the Local Plan: the [name] for [name] (2021) (the London Plan) requires major development to including urban greening. Although the supporting text to London Plan Policy G5 sets out that [name] (UGF) should be applied to major applications, which this proposal is not, it states that its application to smaller scale developments may be appropriate as London boroughs develop their own urban greening models. Policy BH4 of the Local Plan requires all minor residential developments to deliver a UGF of 0.4 on site.

The appellants’ Design and Access statement gives a [address] metre area for proposed flower-rich perennial planting, yet the combined area of the front and rear garden is approximately [address] metres. Despite these inconsistencies, the combined size of the front and rear garden would be of a scale to permit an adequate UGF. As such, if I were minded to allow the appeal, there is nothing to suggest a condition could not be imposed to require the submission of a landscaping scheme including a UGF of at least 0.4.

Accordingly, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on green infrastructure and would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of Policy G5 of the London Plan and Policy BH4 of the Local Plan.

The Council accepts that the proposal would not result in an over-concentration of HMOs as defined by Policy BH7 of the Local Plan, and there is no substantive evidence to lead me to a different conclusion. However, this does not alter my overall findings on the harm caused by the proposal.

The site is not located within a Conservation Area or within the curtilage of a listed building. Nonetheless, the absence of harm in relation to heritage matters is a neutral factor and does not weigh for or against the proposal.

While the Council and a number of interested parties have raised various concerns regarding car and cycle parking provision and fire safety, the Council did not refuse the application on these grounds. There appears to be no substantial dispute between the main parties that these matters could be satisfactorily addressed by condition, and I see no reason to disagree.

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 therefore be dismissed.