Appeal 6002362

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from existing 12-bed HMO (sui generis) to a 15-bed HMO (sui generis) at [site address] , Bolton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19696/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and document: Location & Site Plans HAD3928-01; [name] HAD3928-05; [name] HAD3928-06; [name] 2 HAD3928-07; [name] 3 HAD3452-2-08; [name] 15/04/2025.

Prior to any external doors or windows being installed, a detailed specification for these doors and windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the development is first brought into use and retained thereafter.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations of the following approved Noise Assessment: [site address] , Bolton, [postcode] dated 14/04/2025 ref:1003256 by [name]. i) The building walls and windows of the development hereby approved shall be constructed so as to provide sound attenuation as laid down in BS8233:2014, LAeq/T living rooms 35dB, dining rooms 40dB and bedrooms 30dB (night time), in addition ambient noise levels in the 63Hz and 125Hz frequency bands shall be controlled internally to not exceed 47dB and 41dB, respectively with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided(if necessary) as detailed in Section 3 & 4 of the report. Details of the acoustic insulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the first occupation and retained thereafter. ii) Upon completion of any approved remediation schemes, and prior to occupation, a completion report demonstrating that the scheme has been appropriately implemented and the site is suitable for its intended end use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The occupation/use of the development shall not commence until these details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full before the first occupation and retained thereafter.

Various descriptions of the location of the site have been submitted with the planning application and appeal. I have used the address as given on the planning appeal submission as I consider that this accurately represents the proposal and reflects the description given for a previous planning permission for the site.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on occupants of the House in [name] (HMO) with regard to outlook, light, communal facilities, amenity space and refuse storage.

The property is an existing 12-bedroom HMO, and the proposal consists of adding 3 extra bedrooms identified as A-8, A-7 and B-07. The Council has concluded that [name]-07 will give future residents an acceptable level of amenity, and based on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree.

[name]-8 would be located on the first floor with a main window that would look onto buildings on the opposite side of the street. The separation distance from the buildings is approximately 8m, which is significantly below the 13.5m specified in the Council’s General Design Principles SPD. That said, the SPD sets out that the recommended separation distances relate to conventional housing layouts, and are simply advice on what would represent an ideal layout.

However, the proposal is not for conventional housing and relates to the change of use of an existing building in a town centre location. On that basis, a degree of flexibility in respect of outlook and separation distances is appropriate. The outlook from the room would be onto an active streetscape, and further natural illumination would be enabled by secondary windows which face onto a lightwell. Given the circumstances of the site and my own observations, I consider that [name]-8 would provide a suitable outlook and levels of light for residents and would not lead to oppressive living conditions.

The Council also refer to the convoluted route from bedroom A-8 to a communal kitchen/dining area. However, based on the submitted plans and observations on my visit, the route would be via 2 short flights of stairs and would provide convenient access to the kitchen/dining area.

[name]-7 is on the second floor with a similar location and arrangement as bedroom A-8. Due to its more elevated position, the view from [name]-7 is primarily of the roofscape and the sky above the buildings opposite. Natural light would also be provided by secondary windows facing onto the lightwell. Although the separation distance from the buildings opposite is below that recommended in the SPD, given the location and arrangement of bedroom A-7 I conclude that it would provide a suitable outlook and levels of light for residents.

There are 2 shared kitchen/dining areas within the HMO, but residents of [name]-7 and A-8 would most likely use the facility on the second floor. This shared kitchen diner is 15.1sqm and is only marginally above the minimum requirement of 15sqm required by the Council’s Housing Standards Guidance for shared kitchen/diners serving 8 persons. On that basis, the Council considers that the proposal would not provide a high standard of amenity for residents. However, the plans specify that 2 larger bedrooms on the second floor would include kitchenettes, so that residents of those rooms would not be reliant on the shared kitchen/diner. On that basis, I consider that the proposal would provide suitable facilities for the residents that would rely on the shared kitchen/diner on the second floor, including residents of [name]-7 and A-8.

The Council also refers to a lack of outdoor amenity space. However, this would apply to the existing HMO which the evidence suggests was approved relatively recently, and the Council has not specified if there have been any changes in circumstances regarding outdoor amenity space since the previous permission was granted. In any event, the appeal site has convenient access to parks and public open spaces within and around the town centre.

The Council states that it is not clear that the existing bin storage area is sufficient for the proposal, and the comments of the Council’s Housing Standards consultee also refers to the additional waste storage facilities. However, given the scale of the extant HMO, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed extra bedrooms would mean that the existing refuse storage and collection facilities would be inadequate. Given the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposal would provide suitable refuse storage and collection facilities.

Drawing the above together, the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for occupants of the HMO with regard to outlook, light, communal facilities, amenity space and refuse storage. The proposal would therefore not conflict with the amenity requirements of Policy JP-P1.15A of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2024 and Policy CG4 of [name] 2011. The proposal would also comply with the aims of the General Design Principles SPD with regard to the living conditions of occupants, including in respect of outlook and light.

The Council expresses concern about the impact of the proposal on crime and disorder, although it considers that this may not amount to a reason for refusal in its own right. Reference is made to the number of residents in the HMO, and the number using shared facilities which may lead to conflict. However, the proposal relates to an increase of only 3 bedrooms for an existing large HMO in a sustainable town centre location, and there is no substantive evidence that this would materially increase the risk of crime or anti-social behaviour.

Furthermore, I have found that the proposal would provide suitable living conditions with regards to the use of shared kitchen/dining facilities. I also note that the bedrooms of the HMO would have en-suite bathroom facilities. [name] have had regard to the comments of the [name] for [name], based on the evidence before me I conclude that the proposal would not lead to material harm in respect of crime or the fear of crime.

The Council and consultees have provided suggested conditions, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, and as a result have reworded some of the conditions in the interests of clarity and effectiveness.

In addition to the standard 3 year time limitation for commencement, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans and documents in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring approval of any new external doors and windows is required in the interests of character and appearance and due to the relationship with the Deansgate and Town Hall Conservation Areas.

A condition requiring compliance with an approved Noise Assessment is necessary in respect of the living conditions of future residents regarding noise and disturbance. I have removed reference to ‘other requested information’ as this is not sufficiently precise. The Council’s Pollution Control consultee has suggested other conditions in relation to this matter, but I have not included these as they are addressed by the imposed condition.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.