Appeal 6002242

The appeal is dismissed.

On 17 March 2026 the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (2026) (SLP) was adopted. Consequently, the policies contained within the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) have been superseded. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on this. [name] am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the development plan which is in force at the time of my decision, the appeal has been determined in relation to the policies contained within SLP.

Further to the above, since the determination of the original application, a Direction made under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 came into force on 13 March 2026. [name] withdrew permitted development rights for changes of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses) to Use Class C4 (houses of multiple occupation). The appeal site is covered by the Article 4 Direction, I have been provided with copy of the Article 4 direction, and the appellant has been invited to provide comments. I have taken any comments in relation to this into account when making my

The appeal proposal comprises roof alterations and extensions to the property. The Council indicate that planning permission has recently been granted for very similar extensions and roof alterations1, apart from the proposed single storey side extension adjacent to No 20. The single storey extension is subordinate in height 1 Ref: 24/01542/FUL and of a very limited width, set away approximately 0.6metres from the shared boundary. The Council have not raised any concerns with the proposed roof alterations and building extensions and these aspects do not form part of the reason for refusal. From my observations, I see no reason to disagree. Consequently, my assessment is focussed on the change of use.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the change of use on the character of the road and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is located on the eastern side of [address], in a quiet residential area which comprises predominantly of single family bungalows, two-storey dwellings and flats.

Given the dominance of single family dwellings, the proposed change of use to an 8 person house of multiple occupation (HMO) would be an uncharacteristic use in [address].

I acknowledge that the previous approval (ref 24/01542/FUL) had a similar external appearance to the proposal before me, and that 8 people could potentially occupy the building. However, the previous scheme had a different internal configuration, consisting of a 2 bed and a 3 bed flat, each of which could be occupied by a single family. The HMO proposal before me would accommodate up to 8 individuals in 8 independent bedrooms, each with an ensuite. This represents a significant alteration in the form of occupancy compared to a typical single family home.

As stated, the appeal site is located within a quiet residential area with surrounding properties in use as single dwellings. Families occupying a single dwelling are more likely to undertake day-to-day activities together as a household. Whereas the occupiers of a HMO are likely to be unrelated, leading independent lives from one another with their own individual routines and trips, at different times of the day.

Taking account of the size of the property, the activity generated by up to 8 people living independent lives, each with separate routines, and their associated comings and goings, alongside those of their visitors and deliveries, would materially alter how the property is used on a day to day basis. This would result in a material intensification in the level of activity, with associated noise and disturbance, far in excess of that which could reasonably be associated with a single family unit, or from occupiers living in the two flats if the extant scheme is completed.

As a result, neighbouring occupiers would potentially experience a noticeable increase in noise and disturbance from the increased level of activity associated with the HMO, over and above its current C3 use. Were this to occur particularly early or late, for example due to occupiers being shift workers, such activity, on potentially multiple occasions within a small space of time, could be detrimental to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. This would be more pronounced given the character of the area and prevalence of family homes and the close proximity to neighbouring dwellings.

I acknowledge the lack of objection from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. However, my decision is based on an impartial assessment of the planning merits of the proposal. [name] have taken their response into account, I am not bound to reach a similar view.

The appeal proposal also does not provide any off street parking. [name] note there are no specific parking standards for HMOs, my attention has been drawn to the Council’s general parking standards, which require a minimum of three parking spaces for 4+ bedroom dwellings. Consequently, as the Council noted, parking provision would fall significantly short of this. Although not all occupiers would necessarily own a vehicle, there is the potential for up to 8 additional vehicles parking on the road. Many interested parties raised concerns with on-street parking and, although only a snapshot in time, I observed that parking did appear constrained on the road. Therefore, whilst the lack of parking was not a reason for refusal in itself, it adds to my concern regarding the material intensification arising from the proposal.

In support of the appeal, the appellant contends that the property could lawfully be converted to a six person HMO (Use Class C4) without planning permission. They argue that this should form the baseline of any residential intensification, suggesting that the addition of two more occupants above this fallback baseline would not constitute a material increase. However, since the appeal was lodged, an Article 4 Direction has come into force, withdrawing permitted development rights for C3 to C4 changes of use. Consequently, planning permission is now required to convert the existing C3 dwelling to a C4 use, meaning that the fallback position no longer exists. Even if such a fallback were available, given the proposal is for 8 occupants rather than 6, the fallback position would be less harmful than the development. I also observed on my site visit that the property appeared to be in use as a HMO. However, I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that this is a lawful use. This observation therefore carries very limited weight.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other planning applications for HMOs which the Council allowed, including [address], [address], [address], [address] and [address]. However, in all of these cases, a key consideration was the existing fallback of a six-person HMO, which is not the case in this appeal. These examples, therefore, carry limited weight. In any event, I must determine the proposal before me on its own merits.

For the reasons above, the proposed change of use would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to noise and disturbance and would adversely affect the character of the road. The proposal would conflict with Policy PS2 which, amongst other matters, seeks development that makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and avoids un-neighbourly impacts. It would also conflict with Policy E4 of the SLP which seeks to protect and improve noise conditions.

In reaching my decision, I note that the appeal proposal has sought to resolve previous concerns raised by the Council in relation to inadequate communal space, which the Council considered might force potential future occupiers outdoors. Whilst improved internal space may reduce the need for occupiers to use the outdoor amenity space, it does not overcome my concerns relating to the likely increased comings and goings associated with the use of a HMO compared to a family dwelling, and thus does not alter my findings.

Although Surrey County Council highways did not object outright, they identified that they were unable to comment on highway safety impacts, recommending that in the event of permission being granted, a parking survey should be submitted. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, I would not have found a condition to submit a parking survey appropriate as this would be a matter that would need to be resolved prior to the granting of any planning permission. However, as I am dismissing, I have not needed to consider this matter further.

No harm has been identified by the Council in respect of the external appearance of the dwelling, privacy, outlook, internal living standards and refuse arrangements. However, these are standard expectations of new development and an absence of harm on these matters is of neutral weight.

The proposal would make a positive contribution to the housing choice within the Borough. It would provide affordable accommodation in an accessible location close to public transport. Nevertheless, given the modest scale of the proposal, its associated benefits would be limited and insufficient to outweigh the significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

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. The appeal is therefore dismissed.