Appeal 6002294

The appeal is dismissed.

The current submission follows an earlier refusal of planning permission for ‘Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 4-bed house in multiple occupation (Class C4) and a self-contained residential unit, with associated external alterations.’1

The application form describes the current use class of the property as a ‘dwelling house C3’ and describes the proposal as ‘Change of use from dwellinghouse C3 into 4 [name] C4/[name]. The Planning Statement accompanying the application says that the HMO would ‘..accommodate 4 occupants.’

Shortly following its receipt of the application, the Council wrote to the applicant’s agent to say that it had amended the application’s description, and if the applicant was not satisfied with the amendment to let the Council know. There was no objection, as far as I am aware, and the Council’s revised description is therefore used in the banner heading above.

The application was also accompanied by several drawings including existing and proposed floorplans. The Council’s officers did not consider it necessary to conduct a site visit and presumably acted in good faith in accepting the plans as accurate.

However, I saw at my visit that the existing plans were inaccurate, and misleading. For example, on the ground floor what is shown as a living room is used as a bedroom, and that described as the front lounge is also used as a bedroom. As to the proposed plans the appellant says that his agent ‘misrepresented’ his 1 Ref 25/0352/F requirements and that the function of some rooms is wrongly described on the plans.

The application form also states that the change of use has not started. This contradicts the claims made by many local residents that the multi-occupation of the property was begun some time ago. In response to those claims the appellant says that: ‘The property initially was being shared by a family of 7, including my wife, my 4 children and my ‘mother-in-law’. My children have left home, my mother in law has gone back abroad and it is only my wife and I that live at [address].

However, this does not adequately explain why the appellant’s home address is described in the application form as being near [name].

Be that as it may, under the terms of the appropriate Order2, it is required of the applicant and/or his agent to produce plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application.

Having regard to the inaccuracies and contradictions found I do not consider the requirements of the Order were met. The appellant’s offer to produce amended plans for the appeal is noted, but having regard to the principles established in the Wheatcroft judgment3, my acceptance of that offer would be inappropriate since it would deprive the many interested parties in this case of the opportunity to make further representations. It is important in my view that all concerned within the development process, including local residents, have reasonable certainty as to what a developer proposes and that the information and documentation provided with applications is accurate and reliable. This was not the case here, and since the requirements of the Order have not been met, the appeal shall be dismissed.