Appeal 6002852

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed change of use of the first floor ancillary office space above existing ground floor to a House in [name] (HMO) comprising of 8 bedrooms, with associated internal alterations and an installation of a front door by replacing existing shutter at [site address] and Cleveland [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0370/FF, subject to the following conditions:

The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan ([name]. 02), Site Plan ([name]. 03), [name] ([name]. 07) and [name] ([name]. 09)

Prior to the development being brought into permitted end use a scheme of sound proofing showing measures to deal with sound insulation of walls and floors, between the separate and adjoining properties, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed prior to the commencement of the approved use and shall thereafter be retained.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: - the implications of the proposal for the achievement of balanced communities, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the area, and - the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy H6 (e) of the Redcar and Cleaveland Local Plan (2018) (the LP) states that HMO developments will not be granted if it would result in an over concentration of properties in multiple occupation in the locality. This aligns with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to secure mixed and balanced communities.

In support of the LP the Council have a ‘Houses in [name] (2025) which provides contextual information on HMO’s within the borough. The evidence note outlines that 44 HMOs have been granted planning permission within the borough. Thirty of these are within the Coatham ward, where the appeal site is situated, and one is on [address]. This translates to 1.04% of the dwellings within the ward being HMOs, which I regard as a very small percentage of all dwellings in the ward.

The note recognises that the Council does not currently identify a uniform threshold figure above which a concentration of any land use is deemed “over concentration”. As such, the note goes on to state that an evidence-based approach should be taken by the decision maker to assess whether an overconcentration of HMOs would occur. With this in mind, I consider that the appeal proposal would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs in the area due to the existing low percentage present.

Third parties have provided screenshots of property searches highlighting a high number of single rooms available to rent currently in the Coatham Area. [name] note the information provided, I still consider this to be a limited number compared to the number of residential properties in the Coatham Area and give this limited weight.

The appeal site is a first-floor commercial unit situated on [address], a busy commercial road in the centre of Redcar. The surrounding area consists of various uses which helps create a varied character to the area.

The only external alteration proposed to facilitate the change of use to an HMO is the removal of a ground floor shutter and installation of a front door for access. Therefore, the appeal site would retain its current appearance in the street scene. The HMO use therefore generally retains its existing form and maintains the street scene’s existing appearance. As a result, there would not be any significant change to the character or appearance of the area.

Consequently, the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would maintain a balanced community. As such, it would accord with the relevant provisions of Policies H6 (e) and SD4 (j and k) of the LP. These seek, amongst other things, for proposals to respect the character of the area.

I note that with an HMO of this size and 8 unrelated individuals living together there is likely to be comings and goings and an intensification of activity at the site at differing hours compared to its existing office use. I visited the site during a weekday afternoon and noted the busy nature of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the change of use to an HMO would not be detrimental to the mixed residential and commercial character of the surroundings.

The proposal would therefore safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposed development would therefore comply with LP policies H6 (c) and SD4 (b) which seek to ensure that the development will not give rise to conditions prejudicial to residential amenity.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding any earnings from the proposed HMO not going into the local economy. I do not however have any evidence before me to indicate how this would be the case and I therefore give this limited weight.

Neighbouring third parties have stated that the proposed development would harm the security at a neighbouring site, due to the use of the shared access and rear yard. However, no evidence has been put before me demonstrating how this would be the case. As a result, I give this matter limited weight.

Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the potential for the proposed development to harm the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. However, the proposal would maintain reasonable separation distances, be orientated away from neighbouring windows and proposes minimal external changes. Consequently, I consider there would be no harm to neighbouring residential amenities by way of overbearing impact, loss of outlook or overlooking.

Third parties have also raised concerns regarding a lack of housing and a demand for family homes. However, there is no substantive evidence to indicate how this could be achieved at the appeal site. In addition, concerns have been raised that the proposal would place pressure on local services. However, the proposed use would be modest and would therefore have a negligible effect on the provision of local services.

It has also been highlighted by third parties that the appeal site is not a suitable location for an HMO. However, given its access to goods, services and transport links I do not consider this to be the case. Concerns have also been raised regarding the potential for the proposal to damage property values within the surrounding area however this is something outside the remit of the appeal process.

Several interested parties have highlighted concerns that the proposed development will result in highway safety and parking issues. However, the highway authority has raised no highway safety or parking concerns as a result of the development, and I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. As such, I consider the proposals to accord with the development plan in this respect.

I acknowledge the comments from third parties asserting that the proposal will result in antisocial behaviour and various crime. However, there is nothing before me to suggest how this would be the case. Furthermore, whilst concerns have been raised in regard to the intensity of the proposed use, the internal spaces meet minimum requirements and would create a decent standard of accommodation.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the provision of sound insulation for the walls and floors is necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupants.

The proposal would comply with the development plan and the material considerations in this instance do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend the appeal be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.