Appeal 6002952

The appeal is dismissed.

An update to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in draft for consultation purposes in December 2025. The content of this draft consultation document does not materially alter the national policy context for the assessment of this appeal.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace 2-storey dwelling situated within a predominantly residential area. From what could be seen during the site visit there is evidence of some properties having been sub-divided into flats. However, the majority of the dwellings surrounding the property appear to be occupied as family dwellings. There are some commercial uses near-by, including a convenience store, but they are sufficiently distant so as not to materially change the surrounding area’s predominant character being a suburban residential area.

There is a primary school situated close to the property but the site visit was undertaken mid-morning during the Easter school holiday period. However, it is reasonable to assume that any noise or disturbance associated with the school and experienced by the occupiers of the surrounding dwellings is only during the daytime period. There was no other obvious high level of background noise or disturbance. Vehicles travelling along the roads could be heard as could aircraft movements associated with London City Airport. Overall, the observed background noise level within surrounding residential area was relatively quiet during the site visit.

This observation is reflected in the appellant’s Noise Impact Assessment whereby the noise levels measured at the front façade of the property are deemed moderate to low and are what would be considered typical of a residential environment. The methodology to undertake the surveys and how the Assessment is drafted are not the subject of disagreement with the council.

Planning permission has already been granted by the council for a change of use of the property to a 6-bedroom House in [name] (HMO) (Ref 25/1693/F). This represents a legitimate fallback position to which significant weight is given. The proposed development would create an additional bedroom thereby enabling the property to be occupied as a 7-bedroom HMO.

The operational development required to facilitate the proposed use has already been assessed pursuant to separate applications (Refs 25/2253/PN1 and 25/1589/CP). Accordingly, the council has not objected on any design grounds to the alterations required to the property to create the proposed 7-bedroom HMO. There are no reasons to disagreed with the council’s assessment, including the absence of harm being caused to the setting of the near-by Plumstead Common Conservation Area.

As a 6-bedroom HMO, there would be some noise and disturbance associated with the residents arriving and leaving the property and this would be experienced by the occupiers of 56 and [address] because they are the neighbouring properties. From the evidence available, these neighbouring properties are occupied as family dwellings which reflects the suburban residential character of the surrounding area.

The appeal scheme would have up-to 7 occupiers at any one time. As indicated in the Noise Impact Assessment, because of the nature of HMOs each future occupier could have a different schedule which may lead to more comings and goings from the property during the late evenings and nights than would be expected of a typical dwelling occupied by a single family. As already observed, during the daytime there was no obvious high level of background noise or disturbance. This would be likely to be the case in the evening based upon the surveys and modelling contained in the Noise Impact Assessment.

The Noise Impact Assessment models the anticipated noise which might be associated with the appeal scheme and concludes that, with mitigation, the change in the level of noise associated with comings and goings to the proposed HMO would be slight. As identified by the council, the Assessment does not indicate what the change in noise level would be without the mitigation proposed.

The mitigation proposed includes a circa 2.2-metre high fence adjacent to the front elevation of the property reducing to about 1-metre in height adjacent to the footway, and a canopy for which there are only limited details about its size. Implementing these measures as part of the appeal scheme would comply with Policy D13 of the London Plan (LP) whereby new noise and other nuisance generating development proposed close to residential should put in place measures to mitigate and manage any noise impacts for neighbouring residents. However, these proposed physical noise mitigation measures recommended by the appellant’s specialist consultant are not part of the appeal scheme and cannot be assessed in terms of, for example, their effect on the character and appearance of the property and the streetscene.

The submission of a noise management plan could be subject of a condition but imposing a condition to secure the erection of the mitigation measures would not be appropriate in this case. This is because the proposed fence would not be capable of being erected as permitted development.

Although there would not be a significant change to the level of comings and goings to the property by an increase from a 6-bedroom to a 7-bedroom HMO, the appellant’s Noise Impact Assessment does identify mitigation measures to reduce levels of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of Nos. 56 and 60. The content of this Assessment and the mitigation measures it proposes cannot be simply set aside. For this reason, it is judged that the fallback position is demonstrably outweighed by the content of the Noise Impact Assessment and the mitigation proposed.

In the absence of suitable noise mitigation measures as part of the appeal scheme, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 56 and [address] and, as such, it would conflict with Policy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] and [name] D13 and D14. Amongst other matters and in addition to what has already been identified, these policies refer to mitigating and minimising the potential adverse impacts from development and permission not normally being granted for development which would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, including because of being likely to result in the unacceptable emission of noise.

Reference is made by the appellant to the need for the type of accommodation proposed. This need would still be met by the extant planning permission and the additional bedroom proposed would not materially change this situation. Other examples of HMO schemes have been provided by the appellant and the council but this appeal has been assessed and determined based upon its own planning circumstances. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.