Appeal 6002631

The appeal is dismissed.

I have had regard to the emerging Hounslow Local Plan 2020-2041, including Policy SC10 on Housing in [name] (HMO). However, as the Plan has not yet adopted and certain policies remain subject to examination and unresolved representations, it can be afforded only limited weight. Accordingly, this appeal has been determined in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The appeal property currently operates as an HMO. Nevertheless, the proposal seeks a change of use from a small HMO (Use Class C4) to a larger 9 person HMO (Use Class Sui Generis). The appellant contends that, as the existing lawful use of the appeal site is already an HMO, the criteria for assessing the appropriateness, suitability and location of the HMO is not relevant. Nevertheless, the proposed intensification of use and its associated effects are considerations as part of the development plan policies before me and therefore require consideration. In this regard, the relevant criteria of the development plan and its guidance require consideration, amongst other things regarding the suitability of the location for such a use, the living conditions of future occupiers, and the effect on neighbouring residents. I return to these below so far as they may be relevant.

At the time of the site inspection, it was evident that construction of the infill extension had commenced. The walls and roof had been erected, windows and a door had been installed, and a kitchen had been fitted. However, as completion could not be established, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the information available.

The Council does not contend that the proposed one-storey infill kitchen extension would cause harm to character and appearance of the area. Based on the evidence before me, I agree that its position at the rear of the building, its modest scale, and the use of materials that match the existing building, the extension proposed would not result in harm. Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether the proposed 9 person HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) would be appropriately located, with particular regard to access to local services and public transport provision. • Whether the proposal provides acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to internal space. • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. • Whether the proposal provides adequate car parking provision and the effect on highway safety.

The development is situated on an urban corner plot of [address] and [address] within the London Borough of Hounslow. The surrounding streets are characterised by two-and-a-half-storey semi-detached residential properties, typically featuring private rear gardens and occasional outbuildings.

The building developed is located within a private garden, with an outbuilding positioned to the rear of the site. It comprises a semi-detached, two-and-a-half-storey building, currently used as an HMO for up to six occupants. The building is constructed in red brick and render, with a tiled pitched roof and white framed windows.

The development is located within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTLA) rating of 1b, and does not benefit from convenient walking distance to town centre facilities or public transport services. This would be contrary to Policy SC10 of the Hounslow Local Plan (2015-2030) (Local Plan), which requires HMOs to be situated in areas with a PTAL rating of at least 4.

The development proposed would provide accommodation for a large HMO comprising of nine occupants. While the change of use would increase the number of occupants, it would not result in an increase in the number of bedrooms.

The Council raised concerns that the building would be unable to satisfactorily accommodate an increase in occupancy from six to nine residents due to limited overall floor area. The Policy SC10 of the Local Plan sets a minimum internal floorspace standard of [address] metres for HMOs. The proposed development would have an internal floorspace of approximately 115.[address] metres, which would fall below this standard. It is acknowledged that the proposal includes an extension that would increase the amount of kitchen space available and would improve the existing living conditions. Nevertheless, the shortfall in floorspace would be notable, particularly in the context of the proposed increase in occupant numbers, which would be likely result in increased levels of movement within the property and greater demand on shared facilities.

The Council has also identified that [name]. 5 would not meet the minimum floorspace standard for a one person bedroom. Appendix 1 of the Houses in [name] 2017 (SPD) specifies that single bedrooms should have 6.5 – 10.[address] metres and a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of at least 2.14 metres over 75 per cent of the floor area. [name]. 5 would provide approximately 4.[address] metres of floor area with a minimum height of 2.14 metres, which falls below the standard.

Taking the above matters into account, the proposed increase in the level of accommodation would be unacceptable, and [name]. 5 would not provide a suitable one person bedroom. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies SC5 and SC10 of the Local Plan, as well as the relevant SPD guidance and [name] (NDSS), which seek to ensure appropriate standard of accommodation for residents of HMO’s.

The extension proposed would incorporate a window and glazed door located in the rear elevation, providing access and outlook onto the private garden of the appeal site. Given the restricted viewpoints and the presence of a high boundary fence between the properties, the development would not result in overlooking of neighbouring dwellings or their garden areas.

However, the increase in occupant numbers would generate greater levels of noise and general activity, which would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The surrounding properties are predominantly family homes within a quiet residential area. By its nature, a 9 person HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) would accommodate multiple occupants, resulting in a more intensified pattern of use than a single family dwelling. This intensified use would be characterised by increased comings and goings, and more sustained levels of activity throughout the day and evening, leading to a greater degree of disturbance than would ordinarily be associated, even with a large single household or smaller HMO.

The development would not provide any on-site parking. Furthermore, limited evidence has been submitted regarding existing traffic movement or parking conditions in the area. Paragraph 3.25 of the SPD requires that proposals for HMOs in areas with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of less than 4 are supported by a parking stress survey, which has not been provided. However, the appellant has referred to a parking survey and observations undertaken by a third party in the vicinity of appeal site. While the survey was limited to two hour observation periods on two separate days, it indicated that there was some spare capacity for on-street car parking in the area at the times surveyed.

During my site visit at 11.15am on a weekday, I observed some available on-street parking in the surrounding streets. However, I recognise that this represented only a snapshot in time and may not be indicative of parking conditions during a higher demand, such as evenings.

Given that the proposal would increase number of occupants, each likely to form part of an independent household, the development could reasonably be expected to generate additional vehicle movements and corresponding rise in parking demand within the area. Overall, the proposal would be likely to place increased pressure on on-street parking. However, in the absence of a parking stress survey, the extent to which any additional parking demand would affect highway safety cannot be properly assessed. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy EC2 of the Local Plan and the relevant SPD guidance.

Taking all matters into account, the development would cause unacceptable harm to the living condition of occupiers and neighbouring residents, and parking It would therefore be in conflict with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. In particular, the proposal would be contrary to policies SC5, SC10 and EC2 of the Local Plan, insofar as these seek to ensure that HMOs are designed to high standard, and are located in appropriate areas with good access to services and public transport, and which are capable to absorb the more intensive occupancy.

In addition, the proposal would conflict with guidance set out in the SPD, which seek to ensure that HMOs are appropriately located, with a good standard of accommodation, and do not result in detrimental impacts of HMOs on local amenity.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would conflict with the development plan, as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.