Appeal 6002243

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the change of use from 8 person (No.32) and 1 bedroom flat (No.32b) to 5 person HMO (No.32) and 4 person HMO (No.32b). Addition of dormers to roof space. Alteration to rear roof. Fenestration alterations. Bin store. [name]. Landscaping at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00369/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The appellant has submitted an amended plan as part of this appeal, which omits the parking space. The Council raise concerns that this would be a material change and suggests that it would be prejudicial, as third parties have not had the opportunity to comment. The parking is, however, part of the proposal. There is no existing parking space or dropped kerb, and therefore the amendment would be to exclude the parking from the proposed development, with the existing garden space retained. As such, I do not find it prejudicial, and parking could be pursued separately if sought. I have therefore had regard to the amended plans 512.06B and 512.08A.

The description of development on the application form referred to a ‘4 person HMO (No.34b)’, given that the proposal relates to No.32, I have corrected this typographical error. I have also, in light of the amended plans, omitted parking from the description in the decision.

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to the lack of a planning obligation to secure financial contributions in relation to measures to mitigate against impacts on the Special Protection Areas of the [name]. No obligation has been submitted as part of this appeal.

The main issues are: - • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; • whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for the occupiers in terms of the provision of private outdoor space; and • whether the development would impact upon the integrity of the Special Protection Areas (SPA) of the [name].

The appeal property is located at the corner of [site address] and [address]. It is an end of terrace property with a two-storey outrigger and has its entrance on the side, to [address]. It echoes the general form of No.34 to the opposite corner. The majority of the building is currently used as a large, house of multiple occupation (HMO) with the lower-ground floor a separate flat (No.32b) with its own entrance. To the rear is a small, enclosed garden courtyard.

The proposal effectively reconfigures the building as a whole to form two separate HMOs, each with communal facilities on the ground floor and bedrooms on the upper floors, together with a bedroom on the lower ground floor at No.32.

The proposed development would raise the eaves of the outrigger (proposed No.32b) to that of the main house (no.32); it would nonetheless remain subservient with a lower ridgeline, and this part of the building is set back. Dormer windows would be added to both parts of the roofscape. In line with the guidance set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - [name] (September 2006), they would be positioned below the ridge and away from the verges and eaves line. They would not directly align with the fenestration below, but I do not find that they are disproportionate or overly dominate the roof.

The style reflects the existing dormer windows to No. 34 opposite, and whilst there are some differences in terms of the number, the exact dimensions, and the extent of brick void below the eaves, the two buildings would visually have a similar appearance, creating a sense of balance on each side of the road. In addition, dormer windows are a feature of other properties in the vicinity.

The Council advise that Nos. 34a and 34b, which are two HMOs very similar in layout to the proposal, resulted from different circumstances, as they were already two separate flats. However, irrespective of the background, the resultant use, and the general form would be the same. Additionally, the refurbishment would result in enhanced accommodation in terms of bedroom sizes and the supporting communal facilities would be improved, with each part of the building accommodating 4 or 5 occupants rather than currently 8 occupants sharing, and a separate 1-bedroom flat.

As such, overall, I find that the alterations would be appropriate for the property and would integrate with the character of the area. Thus, the proposed development would accord with policies SDP7 and SDP9 of the Local Plan Review (March 2015 amended) (LPR), and policy CS13 of the [name] (March 2015 amended) (CS) and the SPD. Together, and amongst other things, these seek high-quality development that respects the surroundings, including in terms of scale, massing, appearance, and the streetscape.

The proposal as submitted includes the provision of a parking space, which would reduce the existing rear garden area. The resultant amenity space would be limited with a depth of approximately 3.5m from the rear of the building and would also need to accommodate cycle storage, as the proposed lower-level storage accessed via steps would not be suitable. The space would therefore be restricted and is unlikely to provide an adequate area to sit out and dry clothes as sought by houses in multiple occupation policy H4 (iii).

To address the concern, the amended plans omit the parking. This thereby maintains the existing situation, and there is nothing before me to indicate that the parking is required to make the scheme acceptable. The Council raise concerns that the garden space is only accessible to 32b. However, while the occupiers of 32b would have direct access to the garden from their lounge, there is also a proposed gated access from the street, potentially allowing for shared access. In addition, while not private, there is some space around the front of the building and other nearby properties have limited amenity space, including No. 34 opposite.

Therefore, based on the amended plans, there would be no material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers and the proposal would accord with LPR policies SDP1(i), H4(iii) and the SPD guidance, requiring that development does not unacceptably affect the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens and provide adequate amenity space.

The site is located close to a number of protected areas1 which are designated sites afforded protection by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

CS Policy CS22 seeks to protect such sites from harm and, where necessary, seek mitigation against any adverse effect of development.

As part of the planning application, the Council undertook a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), which concluded that, provided mitigation is secured as part of the [name] (SRMP) and CIL is directed specifically towards Suitably Accessible Green Space (SANGS), the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the European designated sites. It is indicated that measures in relation to nitrates neutrality could be secured via a condition, but an obligation is required for the SRMP provisions. No legal agreement is before me to secure this.

The impacts to be mitigated are derived from the increased pressure from new residential development, which, in combination, would likely result in significant effects. The HRA does not quantify the impact of this proposal, but the Council’s position, as set out in the appeal statement, is that there would be a net gain in dwellings and an increase in population on the site.

The proposal would not, however, increase the number of residential properties, currently two (a large HMO and a separate flat), nor would the total number of 1 Solent and [name], Solent and [name] and Ramsar site and the [name]. As well as the [name], New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. bedrooms within the building as a whole change. Thereby, whilst the building would be extended and internally reconfigured to form two small HMOs (Class C4) there would be no net increase in residential development.

As such, the proposal maintains the existing situation in terms of residential development and therefore would be neutral in terms of the impact on the SPAs. Accordingly, no mitigation for adverse impacts is required, and there would be no conflict with CS policy CS22.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty, and a materials condition is included to ensure that the alterations match the existing property.

The Council have also suggested a number of other conditions. I agree that conditions are necessary to secure the bin and cycle storage, ensuring the appropriate provisions are provided and maintained. The internal and external layout of the building is shown on the approved plans, and I do not consider further conditions in relation to the facilities are necessary. HMO licensing and any associated requirements in relation to communal facilities and equipment is a separate matter, and any changes to the properties beyond a Class C4 HMO would require planning permission.

I have found that the proposal would be appropriate for the character and appearance of the area, maintain the existing amenity space and not result in an increase in residential development with potential impacts on the SPAs. Accordingly, there would be no direct conflict with the development plan, and the appeal is therefore allowed.