Appeal 6002816

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted amended plans with the appeal which reduces the number of bedrooms in the proposed House in [name] (HMO) from nine to eight. In addition, internal cycle and refuge storage is shown on the amended plans, and a parking space has been introduced at the rear of the building which has required an enlargement of the site area.

The ‘Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England’ is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority. The amended plans substantially change the proposal from that upon which the Council made its decision. I am mindful that the Council has made no comment regarding the amended proposals. Furthermore, there is nothing before me that suggests that consultees, such as the Highway Authority, have had the opportunity to comment on the amended scheme, which would cause procedural unfairness.

Therefore, I have not had regard to the amended plans and have determined the appeal based only on those that were before the Council when it made its

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of a community facility; • Whether the proposal would amount to overdevelopment of the site with particular regard to living conditions of the future occupants in respect of outdoor amenity space, the outlook and privacy within bedroom 4, the size of bedrooms 3, 4, 6 and 8, and kitchen facilities; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with regard to noise and disturbance; • The effect of any lack of parking provision on highway safety and the living conditions of neighbouring occupants; and • Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for cycle and waste storage facilities.

The appeal site contains a vacant two storey public house (pub), last used in December 2023. The appellant contends that there is clear evidence that the pub has seen a trading deficit for the last three years of trade due to factors including a sustained drop of footfall, its remote roadside location and competition from larger pubs with better amenities. In addition, it is asserted within the appellant’s appeal statement that the premises has been marketed since mid-2023, during which time no offers were received for the continued use of the appeal property as a pub or hospitality venue.

However, the information before me is limited in scope. The proposal is not supported by any robust evidence that enables an evaluation of the viability of the pub, such as accounts from the last years of trading or a viability assessment that breaks down the estimated cost of refurbishment. Furthermore, the information from the marketing agent suggests that marketing only took place over an 11-month period between 18 January and 16 December 2024. [name] have no reason to doubt that such marketing was widely carried out, given the very short time frame it has not been demonstrated that a robust search for potential investors in the premises has been carried out.

The appeal site is on the edge of a large urban area, with many residential properties nearby, thereby providing a large customer base within a short walking distance. Whilst the pub is not registered as an Asset of [name], but this does not diminish the value that the community places on it, which is expressed within representations on the proposal.

Taking such factors into consideration, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is little to persuade me that the continued use of the pub is financially unfeasible, there is no investor interest in it, or that site is so remote that its specific location is inappropriate. I am not, therefore, satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the use of the appeal property as a pub is unviable and that t could never compete with larger pubs nearby.

I thus conclude that the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility. It would conflict with policies JP-P1 and JP-P3 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (PfE), adopted March 2024, which require, amongst other things, that development provides opportunities for social contact and support, and seek to protect community venues. It would also be contrary to the similar aims of paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I have not been directed to any adopted standards which specify the quantity of outdoor amenity space for HMOs. However, Policy RD11 of the Tameside Residential Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) requires all residents to have access to functional, enclosed amenity space, whether communal or private. Also, SPD Policy RD12 states that communal areas of amenity space should enable multi-residential use.

Although not identified for such a purpose on the proposed plans, it is reasonable to consider that the rear courtyard is the only option for the provision of shared outdoor amenity space. In addition, in the absence of dedicated facilities, it is likely that the courtyard would also be utilised for secure storage of cycles and for discrete waste storage. Given the modest size of the courtyard, I am unconvinced that sufficient outdoor amenity space, for uses such as socialising and drying laundry, would be provided as well as space for bin and cycle storage suitable for 9 occupants. The needs of the occupants in respect of outdoor amenity space would not, therefore, be met to the detriment of their living conditions.

Bedroom 4 would be situated within one of two single storey outriggers at the rear of the appeal property. Its only window would face directly on to the shared outdoor space and would look towards the other outrigger which would contain the communal living room and would have a window positioned diagonally opposite to that of bedroom 4. The intervisibility between the windows of bedroom 4 and the living room, as well as its relationship with the shared external amenity space, would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to that room. Additionally, the proximity of the window to the side wall of the living room would have an enclosing and dominating effect on outlook. Consequently, as acknowledged by the appellant, the living conditions of the occupant of bedroom 4 would be adversely and unacceptably affected.

The Council highlights that bedrooms 3, 4, 6 and 8 are below the floorspace standards set out in the [name] Standards1 (NDSS) for double bedrooms. However, the appellant has indicated that all bedrooms are designed for single occupancy and therefore exceed NDSS standards. Additionally, I note all bedrooms would meet Council’s HMO space standard for double bedrooms, other than bedroom 6 which would only fall short by a very marginal amount. Although no built-in storage is shown on the plans there would be space within each bedroom for storage to be provided. Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that all the bedrooms would provide adequate living conditions for single occupants when the additional accommodation provided by the shared living room is taken into consideration.

Only one kitchen and no built-in storage facilities would be provided. However, the appellant highlights that the proposal complies with the Council’s HMO space standards in respect of layout, size, amount of worktop space, and the equipment provided, which the Council does not dispute. Furthermore, my attention has not been drawn to any policy or guidance which states that two kitchens must be provided for a nine-bedroom HMO. Overall, I consider that the kitchen would be appropriate for an HMO of the proposed size. 1 Department for Communities and Local Government Technical Housing Standards – [name] (2015)

I thus find that the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for the future occupants due to inadequate outdoor amenity space and the outlook and privacy within bedroom 4. This indicates to me that it would amount to overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policy H10 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), November 2004, which requires, amongst other things, development to be designed to meet the needs of the potential occupiers. In addition, the proposal would not accord with the similar aims set out at paragraph 135 of the Framework and the SPD, in particular policies RD3, RD11 and RD12.

In the reason for refusal about overdevelopment, the Council has also referred to a conflict with UDP Policy C1. However, as it relates to matters which the Council has not raised objection to, namely townscape and urban form, and does not refer to living conditions, it is not relevant to this main issue. Furthermore, I find that there is no conflict with SPD Policy RD18 as it does not set minimum dwelling sizes for a 9 bedroom/person HMO.

In general, the occupiers of an HMO lead more transient lifestyles. The nine occupants of the proposal are likely to have separate routines which involve the undertaking of day-to-day activities, such as cooking and laundry, and travelling for the purposes of leisure and shopping and, possibly, for work, at different times. As such, as suggested by the Council, noise and disturbance generated by the proposed use is likely to be greater than that of a family home, where occupants are more likely to carry out day to day activities together as a household.

The lawful use of the appeal premises is, however, a pub, a use which can generate noise and disturbance even if customer behaviour were managed. This is likely to be irregular in character and would vary in level. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that it would extend to 11.00pm and beyond, depending upon the closing time, so would occur at unsociable hours when nearby residents reasonably expect a greater level of peace and quiet.

I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that supports a conclusion that the proposal will cause greater levels of noise or disturbance when compared to its use as a pub, a use which could lawfully recommence, even when the close relationship of the appeal premises to the dwellings on [address] is taken into consideration.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development does not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties with regard to noise and disturbance. It accords with UDP Policy H10, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties through noise. It also accords with the similar aims of the Framework as set out at paragraph 135.

The site is in an accessible location with several local amenities within easy walking distance. I also noted on my visit that there are bus stops on [site address] near to the appeal property. This suggests that the occupants of the proposed HMO would not necessarily be reliant upon the private car, having access to alternative modes of transport. Nonetheless no on-site parking spaces are proposed and, based on the extent of the appeal site ,it appears unlikely that any could be provided. The proposal would, therefore, generate some on-street parking.

On my site visit, which I acknowledge is a snapshot in time, I noted that the nearby roads were busy but, nevertheless, there was on-street parking capacity in the vicinity of the appeal site. I also noted that, other than close to road junctions, there were no parking restrictions and that many of the nearby dwellings have off-road parking provision. Therefore, whilst it is reasonable to assume that on-street parking demands in the locality will increase at peak times when more people are at home, it is still likely that there is capacity to accommodate additional parking on the highway generated by the proposal.

Also, I have been presented with very little evidence as to how the proposal would lead to actual harm to highway safety. No compelling case has been given to indicate that a lack of on-site parking would lead to occupants choosing or being forced to park dangerously at a junction or on a bend in the road. Therefore, whilst the development would result in more people parking on nearby streets, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that this would result in any material harm to highway safety. Furthermore, there is nothing before me that suggests that the lack of on-site provision would lead to antisocial parking. I thus find that any increased demand for parking arising from the appeal proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of nearby occupants.

Accordingly, although no on-site parking would be provided, I find that the proposal would not harm highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. As such it would not conflict with UDP policies H10, T1 and T10 which require, amongst other things, suitable arrangements for parking and no unacceptable impact on the surrounding road network. In addition, there would be no conflict with section 9 of the Framework.

SPD Policy RD8 requires six cycle storage spaces for a house with four or more bedrooms. I have not been directed to any standards regarding waste storage requirements for the proposal, but I note that SPD Policy RD14 requires refuse storage to be place at the side or rear of dwellings where possible and it has been highlighted that a trade waste contract would be required.

As set out above, in the absence of alternative provision, it is likely that the rear courtyard area would be used for secure cycle parking and waste storage. No substantive evidence has been presented that demonstrates that the available space is insufficient to accommodate appropriate cycle and waste storage for nine occupants. Furthermore, I consider that it would be reasonable and appropriate to secure waste storage and secure cycle storage provision through a planning

On that basis, I conclude that, subject to a planning condition, the proposal would make adequate provision for cycle and waste storage. It would, therefore, accord with the PfE Policy JP-C8 requirement that enough cycle parking is provided to meet long-term demand from occupiers. It would also accord with PfE Policy JP- P1 and UDP Policy H10 which require development to, amongst other things, respond to the need of occupiers for waste storage. Furthermore, opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes would be met and the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the Framework and with SPD Policy RD14.

The proposal would not involve an addition to the footprint of the building or any significant alteration to its external appearance, thereby ensuring that the development would not materially harm its Green Belt setting and would retain any heritage value that exists. However, these are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of, or against, the proposal.

More affordable shared housing would be provided by the proposal. Nevertheless, no substantive evidence has been presented that there is an identified unmet need for such accommodation in this area. In addition, I note that the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which suggests that current policy is providing enough housing to meet the housing requirements for the area. Therefore, although appreciating that the Framework seeks to boost the supply of housing, I attach limited weight to the provision of a nine-bedroom HMO as proposed. Overall, the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

[name] have found that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants or highway safety, and adequate cycle and waste storage could be provided, this does not outweigh the identified harm from the loss of a public house and the provision of inadequate living conditions for the occupiers. The proposed development, therefore, conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

I hereby dismiss this appeal.