Appeal 6003044

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already been carried out. However, ‘retrospective application’ is not an act of development and as such, I have removed the reference to this in the description above.

The appellant provided a [name] (TTN) with the appeal submission. This was not submitted with the original appeal documents. [name] have now had sight of this document the Council have not.

If this appeal were to be determined on the basis of the additional information there would be a risk that parties wishing to comment on the TTN would be deprived of the opportunity to do so. In this regard and in the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the original submission.

The main issues are:

whether the development would be consistent with planning policies regarding the provision of housing in the borough,

the effect of the development on the character of the area and the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance,

whether or not the development would provide appropriate living conditions for occupiers; and,

whether the development would be consistent with planning policies relevant to the provision of parking.

Policy 8: Houses in [name], contained in the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2021 (LP), states that HMOs will be supported where it can be demonstrated that seven criteria are satisfied. The first criterion outlines that the Council will support applications for HMOs where it can be demonstrated that the overall size of the original property to be converted is not less than [address] metres (sqm).

The supporting text sets out that the policy criteria seek to deliver appropriate residential conversions whilst maintaining a supply of family housing in line with the strategic need of the borough . The Outer North East London Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016) identified that there is a need for three bedroom properties in the borough, meaning the conversion of small family homes to HMOs would have a particularly negative impact on the supply of family housing.

The main parties disagree on the interpretation of Policy 8(i) in relation to the meaning of “original”. The appellant says that the intent of the policy is to ensure that dwellings being converted into HMOs are adequately sized, and that “original” should refer to the point of conversion. [name] definition has been put to me, but an ordinary meaning of the term “original” is as the property was first constructed, and thus I do not agree with the appellant’s interpretation, for which I find no support in the policy text put to me.

The approximate gross internal area (GIA) outlined on plan reference No 106435 is stated to be 120.49sqm. However, this area includes the additional floorspace of a ground floor single-storey rear extension and second floor rear dormer loft conversion and extension, which the Council state are later additions. The appellant does not dispute this.

Accordingly, the GIA of the original dwelling would have been significantly less than the requisite 120sqm. As such, the proposal would result in the loss of smaller family home for which there is an identified need.

Therefore, I conclude that the development is contrary to Policy 8(i) of the LP, which, amongst other things, seeks to prevent development that would result in a negative impact on the supply of small family housing.

The appeal site is a mid-terraced two-storey property with single-storey rear extension and second floor rear dormer loft conversion and extension, located in a predominantly residential area of similarly modest terraced dwelling The site has a modest frontage with parking for a single vehicle, and large narrow rear garden.

The appellant states that the C4 use of the building is not dissimilar to how it would be used for C3 purposes. However, the HMO is capable of accommodating up to six individuals in five households, all of whom have their own separate work and domestic regimes, attract their own social network and, access goods and services at different times during the day, evening and night. The nature of HMOs is that tenancies can be shorter and more transient which, as the Council’s evidence suggests, can result in imbalanced and unsustainable communities where tenants are not engaged with the community or do not support local facilities.

The Council points to the evidence underpinning the Article 4 Direction and Policy 8 which sets out problems associated with HMOs, including anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance, negative impacts on the physical environment and streetscape and pressures upon parking provision. The layout, with bedrooms at ground floor level, results in a more intensive use of the property. Coupled with the separate lifestyles of occupants and increased volume of movements to and from the building, it would represent a harmful change to the character of the property and the wider streetscene when compared to a scenario where the property is occupied by a single-family unit, where occupants would be likely to reside on a longer term basis and live in a manner more consistent with neighbouring residents.

I have also had regard to several public representations which point to ongoing problems at the property, including anti-social behaviour, noise, late night activity, altercations resulting in the attendance of emergency services and inconsiderate parking. [name] recognise that an individual’s behaviour can be difficult to predict, the representations indicate a clear and ongoing pattern of conduct that, in the neighbours’ view, has not been addressed promptly or satisfactorily.

I also note that the rear garden space of the appeal site could only be achieved through the private living space of bedsit 3; the alternative being via a gated access further along the road between No 63 and [address]. These latter access arrangements would likely give rise to a potential increase in noise and disturbance to occupiers of these adjoining residential properties.

A Management Plan could be required by planning condition, detailing, amongst other things, the measures to control the occupation of the dwelling, noise and disturbance and tackle anti-social behaviour. I note that the management company responsible for the HMO has recently changed, and that it is anticipated that they would have clear policies regarding the concerns as outlined above. However, I have not had sight of these policies, nor a draft management plan. As such, there is no detail before me as to how potential issues would be addressed, and I cannot be sure they would be effective. Given the evidence before me, including the significant level of representation from neighbours outlining their lived experiences , I am not satisfied that this is a matter that can be left to be addressed by planning

Therefore, I find that the development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. This conflicts with [name] 8 and 34, which amongst other matters, seek to avoid unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.

The East London HMO Guidance (ELHMOG) sets the minimum floor area standard for single occupancy at 13sqm. While rooms 2-5 meet or exceed the required floor area, room 1, which is 11.7sqm, falls short of this requirement. The ELHMOG outlines that smaller room sizes may be acceptable, subject to a risk assessment (RA). Whilst the appellant has not submitted a RA for room 1 with the appeal, the shortfall in this case is modest, and the room benefits from a decent layout and good light and outlook via the bay window.

Separately, however, Criteria (vi) and (vii) of Policy 8 require respectively the provision of satisfactory communal space, and that the ELHMOG, which sets out quality and minimum living space standards, is met. The evidence indicates that the combined kitchen and living space on the first floor to be 12sqm in area. The ELHMOG outlines that the kitchen space should amount to between 7.5sqm and 9.5sqm and the living area should be 16sqm. Therefore, the development does not meet these standards.

Moreover, whilst the majority of the bedrooms meet the minimum size standard, the nature of HMO living means these are spaces required not only for sleeping, but often relaxing, eating and studying, as well as storage. The configuration of rooms 2 and 3, as highlighted by the Council, includes narrow corridors. This does not represent meaningful, useable space for day-to-day living or storage of personal items and would result in a cramped environment for occupants.

Therefore, due to the layout of rooms and the lack of adequate communal space, I conclude that the development fails to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for occupants, contrary to Policies 8 and 34 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, to avoid unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers through noise and disturbance and ensure that development delivers appropriate standards of amenity and living conditions for occupiers of the development.

The evidence indicates that the site has a PTAL rating of 1a which engages the LP parking standards. The delegated report suggests that the minimum requirements for the development would be three off-street spaces. However, the Council indicates that this is the standard for a studio flat, there being no indication of a specific standard for HMOs. Nonetheless, given the low PTAL rating, it is reasonable to consider that some demand will arise for parking, and that this would be higher than that for a single dwelling given the HMO would comprise up to five separate households. As such, the standard referred to by the Council is a useful yardstick.

This level of parking cannot be achieved within the appeal site, and I noted the extensive number of driveways to neighbouring properties has reduced the availability of on-street parking in the immediate area. Though spaces were available at the time of my visit, this was a snapshot in the early afternoon and demand is likely to increase in the evenings and weekends as more residents are at home. Neighbour representations highlight an increased parking pressure as a result of the use of the appeal site as an HMO. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be able to provide sufficient parking for occupants without increasing demand for limited on street parking in the immediate area and creating inconvenience for other residents.

The development is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy 8 (iv) of the LP, the London Plan Policy T6 and paragraph 116 of the Framework, which, amongst other things seeks to set appropriate residential parking standards for the area.

The provision of a HMO would deliver a social benefit in providing lower cost accommodation for more occupants, in line with the Framework’s support for housing generally and the housing needs of different groups. This benefit would however carry only limited weight given the scale of the proposal and considering that there would still be social benefits in having the property remain as a single dwellinghouse. Other economic benefits from the additional residents spending money in the local area would be similarly limited in scale.

For the reasons set out, the development conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole, to which I give significant weight, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.