Appeal 6002765

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Newham. This application is subject of a separate

I have noted that the site is within an Article 4 Direction, which came into force on 1 July 2013, which results in planning permission being required for a change of use between Use Class C3 to Use Class C4.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of private internal space. • Whether the proposal would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning the spatial strategy. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residents, with particular reference to potential for noise and disturbance.

Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states ‘create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users’.

I have noted in the Council’s Delegated Report that the Council refers to Policy SP8 of the Newham Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan) refers to the requirement of making provision of appropriate communal spaces and private amenity spaces in Houses of [name] (HMO). In addition, the Council also refer to Policy H3 of the Local Plan and its requirement to ensure appropriate accommodation for future residents. The Council also refers to Policies GG4, D3 and D5 of The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] 2021 (London Plan) and these policies are linked to high quality design and living experience in the [name]. However, the Council has not referred to these policies in its second reason for refusal. With the Council having made clear reference to these policies in its delegated report in forming its decision I will duly consider them in forming my own recommendation on this issue. This would not prejudice the appellant who would have had sight of the Council’s Delegated Report before submitting their appeal.

The proposal seeks to create a five bedroom HMO, with five ensuites/bathrooms and a kitchen dining room space of 13.9 sqm.

The appellant has provided details of a conversion of 2 bedroom house into a three bed HMO at 72 Baxter Road1 within the same borough. [name] had a proposed kitchen/living room space of 15.4sqm and a study space of 5sqm. This previous application was based on the assessment of requiring a kitchen of 5.5 sqm and a communal living area of 13 sqm. The HMO at [address] has a larger amount of communal space to fewer proposed occupants than the current appeal. Though it is noted that the Council for this HMO stated that communal living areas were not a requirement. On this basis whilst there are significant material differences between [address] and the current appeal, I still grant limited positive weight to this previous HMO decision.

With the proposal seeking to create a HMO for 5 occupants, I do not consider that the proposed communal space is sufficient for this number of potential future occupants. This is on the basis it would not provide a high standard of amenity or well-being for future residents, as it would lead to these occupants spending a substantial amount of time in one room. [name] accept that these bedrooms are of sufficient size, including potentially providing kitchen facilities this does not overcome my concern on lack of communal space.

I have also noted that the Council has raised concerns regarding Room 1 and Room [address] to the front door and the kitchen dining room. However, given I have concluded that future occupiers would not be likely spending much time in the communal area due to its small size the likely disturbance from this space is limited. The disturbance from the front door opening and shutting is likely to be greatest on Room 1. On this basis I accept that the number of occupants coming and going, as well as deliveries would have some disturbance upon the occupant 1 Application number 23/02663/FUL seeking rest in this space. However, I note the indicative position of the bed is set away from the front door. On this basis, the disturbance to the downstairs bedrooms from other occupants of the house has limited weight against the proposal.

On this issue I conclude that the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions, due to the lack of communal space. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policies D3 and GG4 of the London Plan, which seek to deliver appropriate amenity in the design of a building and high quality design. Policy D4 of the London Plan, while it focuses on delivering good design this is via promotion of masterplans or design codes and I do not consider it to be directly relevant to this issue.

The proposal also does not comply with Policies H3, SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Local Plan, which in total seek to ensure high quality accommodation with appropriate communal and private amenity spaces in HMOs. Policy H1 of the Local Plan focuses on overall increase in housing supply, and I do not see it being specifically applicable to this issue.

The proposal seeks to convert the two bedroom terrace into a five bedroom HMO.

Policies GG4, H8 and H10 of the London Plan in total focus on providing good quality new dwellings are provided that allow for mixed and inclusive communities, that any dwellings lost are replaced and ensuring appropriate housing mix. However, I am not aware that there is an overconcentration of HMOs within the immediate locality and on this basis the proposal does not create or enhance an unbalanced community. In addition, the proposal is seeking conversion of residential space from Use Class C3 to C4, so would not lead to a dwelling being lost.

Policies S1 and H1 of the Local Plan overall focus on ensuring a mixed and balanced community. As stated above, there is no evidence to demonstrate the proposal would create an unbalanced community.

Policy H3 of the Local Plan seeks HMOs to be located within Town and Local Centres or along [name]. Whilst the site has not been stated as being within a relevant centre of corridor, I noted on my site visit the sites proximity to [address] [name] that was within easy walking distance. Therefore, while the proposal does not comply with this policy the level of conflict is at worst moderate.

I note the appellant has referred to a recent appeal decision within the borough2. The Inspector for this previous appeal decision noted the age of the Newham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and on this basis concluded the current need for HMOs in the area was an unknown. The Inspector still concluded there was harm to the supply of family sized accommodation due to the conversion to the HMO, though considered the harm to be low and outweighed by other factors. The previous Inspector also duly considered the sites location in proximity to public transport. I have given this previous appeal decision significant weight in my determination. 2 APP/G5750/W/25/3360258

I conclude on this issue that while the proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy, as specifically detailed in Policy H3 of the Local Plan, the potential need for HMOs within the borough and the closeness of a railway station outweigh the harm identified.

[address] is defined by terrace housing and is near a school, though it is noted that this road is unlikely to be used as a through road and that disturbance from the school will be during specific times in the day.

I have noted a previous appeal decision provided by the appellant within the same borough3. While each application is determined on its own merits, there are similarities between this previous and current appeal. Specifically, that the Inspector on the previous appeal considered the site’s location on a terrace street and opposite a school. However, a material difference between the two sites is that the previous appeal was already operating as a HMO for several years. Therefore, this previous appeal only has moderate weight in favour of the appeal.

The increase in occupants plus the nature of a HMO is likely to increase the activity of people entering and leaving the site over its current C3 Use Class. The additional activity might also be during less social hours and on this basis, there would be an increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. However, given the sites urban setting this increase is likely to have a very limited impact on neighbouring residents. Therefore, there is unlikely to be detrimental impacts to the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupants.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. On this basis the proposal complies with Policies GG1, GG3 and D14 of the London Plan that in total seek to provide inclusive and healthy places to live, as well as preventing significant noise pollution. The proposal also complies in relation to this issue with Policies SP1, SP2, SP8 and H3 of the Local Plan, which seek in total to create attractive places to live, promote health, prevent unacceptable noise pollution and ensuring housing mix is appropriate to its location.

The site is located within the Zone of Influence of Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. If the appeal was to be allowed, it would be necessary to consider this matter within an appropriate assessment. However, as detailed above, there are strong reasons to dismiss this appeal

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.