Appeal 6002461

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to internal communal space.

The appeal site is a three-storey end of terrace property on the corner of [address] and [address]. [address] is predominately mixed use in character and similarly to other buildings in the vicinity, the appeal building has commercial space at ground floor and residential uses above. This appeal specifically relates to the second-floor flat within the appeal building which extends into the roof space.

The appeal scheme proposes the change of use of the second and third floors to a small House in [name] (HMO) comprising three bedrooms with en-suite shower rooms and a shared kitchen, for occupation by up to five people.

[name] of the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (the SPD) defines the space standards for HMOs in accordance with the Council’s Property Licensing requirements. The SPD states that dwellings with three or more bedrooms should have two living spaces, for example a living room and a kitchen/dining room. For a 5 person HMO, the SPD states the kitchen needs to be a minimum of 7.[address] metres (sqm) and a communal living room for 5 people should be 15sqm. However, if this is shared with other living space then the minimum combined floor area of a living, dining and kitchen space must be 29sqm to serve 5 people.

The Council states the kitchen would be approximately 10.63sqm which is undisputed by the appellant. While this would exceed the minimum standards in the SPD for a separate kitchen, the appellant accepts that other than the bedroom areas, no separate living space is to be provided within the HMO. The total communal space within the HMO therefore falls significantly short of the SPD minimum standards, which requires at least 29sqm for five-person occupancy.

Even though a dining table and chairs were within the kitchen at the time of my visit, I observed that due to the size of this room, it would be a cramped space for five people to use as a combined living, dining and kitchen space. It would not comfortably accommodate these functions simultaneously for up to five people either. In reality, occupiers would be reliant on their bedrooms as their only space for relaxing, eating and sleeping. Even though the bedrooms would meet the required size standards, the SPD sets out that all HMOs must provide a high-quality form of accommodation in accordance with the standards set out in [name], and that communal facilities are required to include at least a living room. The appeal scheme would clearly fail to meet these requirements.

The appellant contends that as the property benefits from a HMO license dated 12th May 2025, this demonstrates the acceptability of the standard of accommodation. While a letter deposited indicates the Council’s Licensing team have found the property to comply with its license conditions, I have not been supplied with a copy of the license that covers the property, or the plans against which this might have been assessed at the time it was issued. I therefore cannot be certain that the two are comparable.

Based on the evidence before me in this appeal, no living room would be provided, and the communal internal space would fall over approximately 15m short of the SPD standards. This indicates that there would be insufficient space for the maximum amount of potential future occupants to be able to relax together comfortably. Given this deficiency, I find that the HMO would fail to provide an acceptable living environment for future occupants. This conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which supports developments with a high standard of amenity for future users.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to internal communal space. This is contrary to Policy LP29 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (the RLP) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) which are of relevance insofar as they seek to ensure that developments provide a high standard of residential accommodation, including in respect of the size, quality and arrangement of internal space and the [name] set out in the SPD.

Although not part of the Council’s reason for refusing planning permission, I note that concerns have been raised with regard to the floor to ceiling heights and level of external amenity space. [name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in respect of the main issue it would have been necessary for me to examine these matters in further detail. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for another reason, I have not considered these matters further as they would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The Council has raised no objection to the development in respect of highway safety and living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

I have found that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, contrary to the aforementioned policies of the RLP, London Plan and the Framework. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it has failed to satisfy the [name] with housing completions at 39% of its target. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. In this case, this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including making effective use of land in meeting the identified need for different types of housing.

The scheme would provide a HMO that could accommodate 5 occupants, resulting in a more intensive use of the property and effective use of land in a sustainable location with access to services and facilities. This would contribute to the mix of housing within the area and align with policies within the Framework which seek to significantly boost the supply and variety of homes. There would also be some economic benefits through future occupiers contributing to local services and facilities.

However, the appeal site is already in residential use and, as such, the proposal would not add in numerical terms to the quantum of the housing stock as it would not result in the creation of a new dwelling. Moreover, given the scale of the development, any social, economic or environmental benefits would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position. Therefore, the weight attached to these benefits overall is limited.

Set against this, the development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects a high standard of amenity to be achieved for future users. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

As such, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.