Appeal 6002225

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant asserts that the appeal property is currently being operated as a 6 bed Houses of [name] (HMO), under Use Class C4. However, at my site visit the property was under construction. In lieu of any substantiated evidence, I find that it is likely that the most recent usage falls under Use Class C3 Dwellinghouse. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that if the appeal proposal were dismissed, there is a reasonable prospect that such a fallback position would be implemented. As such I have considered it throughout my decision.

The external alterations proposed have already been approved by the Council through a number of applications submitted over the course of 20251. These applications are extant and the parties agree that the alterations are acceptable and I have no reason to disagree.

As such, the main issue is whether the existing property is suitable for sub-division into a large scale HMO, with particular regard to the original floor area, access to public transport and other amenities, amenity space and parking capacity.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling, located in suburban area with a distinctly residential character.

Policy HO3.9 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 (October 2022) (LP) supports the provision of large-scale HMOs where the property has an original, unextended floor area of at least 150sqm. The policy also requires large scale HMOs to have 1 Application references: 25/0329/FULH, 25/00563/FULH, 25/00240/LDC and 25/00197/HPD good access to public transport and other amenities, and appropriate amenity space and parking provision.

The evidence before me indicates that the previously approved extensions would increase the floor area of the appeal property over 150 sqm. However, Policy HO3.9 is clear in that the figure of 150sqm relates to the dwelling’s original, unextended floor area. The floor area of the original building is approximately 86sqm, which is far below the stated requirement.

This requirement is in place to mitigate against the loss of family dwellings, maintaining a variety of scales of properties available. Allowing family dwellings that have been significantly extended to be converted to HMOs would not support this objective. However, I acknowledge that the fallback scheme to convert the property to a six bed HMO would also contradict this objective.

The extended floor area would provide adequate space for bedrooms and kitchens. Whilst the Council contends that the rear garden would be substandard given the number of future occupiers, there would be sufficient space for essential activities such as drying clothes, cycle storage, and sitting out in warmer months for all residents.

The decision notice references privacy, but the Council have not elaborated on their concerns. Sufficient separation would be provided between the proposal and the surrounding buildings so as not to allow for any mutual overlooking. The garden would be large enough to provide separation between the ground floor bedroom windows and residents using the outdoor amenity space.

Nevertheless, the site is located in an area which has been identified within the LP as a [name]. This designation was assigned based on a number of criteria, including access to public transport, employment areas, schools and local shopping centres. This is consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seek to manage patterns of growth, limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

The evidence before me suggests that the nearest bus stop is some distance away and I have not been provided with any information as to the frequency of the bus services available. Whilst there are some services and facilities within walking/cycling distance, such as a doctor’s surgery, pharmacy and convenience store, future residents would need to venture further afield to meet their day-to-day needs and access employment.

In the absence of any substantiated evidence regarding the bus services and in light of the area’s designation as a low sustainability zone, I do not consider that the proposed development would have good access to public transport and other amenities, resulting in a high dependency on car journeys. Although the fallback scheme would have the same level of accessibility, there would be one fewer occupant. As such, the fallback would inherently have a reduced need to travel, with a lower dependency on car journeys when compared to the proposal and would be more reflective of the appeal property’s current C3 use.

Car parking standards which form an appendix to LP Policy ST11.5 recommend a maximum of 1 space per unit. The proposal would therefore provide four of the maximum seven spaces. Given the limited accessibility of the site, it would be likely that all future residents would own a car, leading to an overspill of 3 vehicles.

[name] acknowledge concerns raised about parking within the area at various times of day and when events are being held locally, I noted from my site visit that the majority of surrounding properties have off-street parking, and there were ample opportunities for on-street parking close to the appeal property. In these circumstances, I do not find that additional on-street parking as a result of the development would detrimentally effect parking capacity within the local area.

Although, I am satisfied with regards to the original floor area due to the fallback position as well as the amenity space and effect on parking capacity; overall, I find that the existing property would not be suitable for sub-division into a large-scale HMO, with particular regard to access to public transport and other amenities. The proposal would conflict with Policies HO3.9 and QD6.4 of the LP where they collectively require development to be accessible.

The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where it requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development.

No concerns have been raised by the local highway authority, nor environmental health. Moreover, the proposal would provide suitable waste management and would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However, this would be expected of any well-designed scheme and therefore, weighs neither in favour of nor against the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the fallback position reduces the weight I attribute to the policy conflict regarding original floor area. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme would be more harmful in terms of accessibility and so does not lead me to determine the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.