Appeal 6003070

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a 6 bedroom 6 person HMO (class C4) to an 8 bedroom 8 person HMO (sui generis), including erection of 3no. timber bin stores and 4no. timber cycle stores at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/502257/FULL, subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of the permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: EFP/24043 - 1 [name] rev a.

There shall be no more than a total of 8 residents occupying the property at any time.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the bin and cycle stores shall be implemented in accordance with the details shown on approved plan EFP/24043 - 1 [name] rev a and retained as such thereafter.

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

The description of development set out in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, the Council’s decision notice describes the development proposed as ‘change of use from a 6 bedroom 6 person HMO (class C4) to an 8 bedroom 8 person HMO (sui generis), including erection of 3no. timber bin stores and 4no. timber cycle stores’. As this is a more accurate description of the proposed development, I have determined the appeal on this basis and the decision in paragraph 1 above reflects this approach.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character of the area, with particular regard to on-street parking.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property on the busy [address]. It has a lawful development certificate for use as a 6 bedroom 6 person house in multiple occupation (HMO)1. Much of the road has double yellow lines but there is a length of on-street parking outside the appeal property. This is restricted to resident permit holders or two hours from 8am-6.30pm on Mondays to Saturdays. The narrow surrounding streets have on-street parking with the same restrictions.

The proposal includes converting existing living and communal storage rooms to provide an additional two bedrooms in the property. There is no existing or proposed off-street parking on the site.

Whilst only a snapshot in time, at my daytime visit, I observed many cars parked on street on this part of [address] and in the nearby surrounding roads. At that time, there were very few spaces available, and it was clear that there was local parking stress. Due to the narrowness of the roads close by, some vehicles were parked on the pavements.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to promote health and well-being and requires development to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The National Design Guide states that patterns of movement for people are integral to well-designed places and seeks to avoid on-street problems such as pavement parking and congested streets.

Documents by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation and the British Parking Association indicate that parking problems can lead to pavement parking, obstruction of accesses and tension between neighbours. Amongst other things, they also refer to increased demand for on-street parking spaces when properties are converted for multi-occupancy without any increase in parking provision and increased time spent searching for vacant parking spaces.

The Council accepts that the proposal would meet the criteria in its HMO Supplementary Planning Document 2025 (SPD). Nevertheless, it lists multiple HMOs in the vicinity, some of which do not require permission or a licence because of their small size, and is concerned that the proposed intensified use of the property would exacerbate on-street parking stress in the locality.

However, the site lies in an area where permits are required to park vehicles on street for longer periods of time on most days. The permit quota for HMOs is two resident permits and one visitor permit regardless of the size of the HMO. Therefore, as the property can lawfully be used as an HMO, the proposal would not result in any change to the number of car parking permits that could be issued to its occupiers.

Further, the appeal property is close to bus stops with regular services into central Maidstone and the proposed scheme includes the provision of bike stores, so future residents would have access to transport modes other than the car. 1 Ref 25/500497/[name], the proposed increase in the number of occupiers of the HMO would not harmfully exacerbate parking stress in the surrounding area.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character of the area, with particular regard to on-street parking. It would comply with Policies LPRHOU2 and LPRSP15 of the Council’s Local Plan Review 2024 which require the intensified use of a building as an HMO to not harm the character of the surrounding area, amongst other things.

Interested parties are concerned about the overconcentration of HMOs and loss of family homes, but the property can lawfully be used as a 6 person HMO. The SPD seeks to avoid exceeding a 10% threshold of HMOs within a 100m radius of the site. This excludes HMO properties with four or fewer occupants as these fall outside the licensing and planning regimes. In this case, there are 149 properties within a 100m radius and three existing HMOs with more than four occupiers within that area. Thus, notwithstanding that the property could lawfully be used as an HMO, and in accordance with the SPD, the scheme would not result in a harmful concentration of HMOs or the unacceptable loss of a family home.

Some neighbours have raised issues about the amount of internal and outdoor amenity space. Nevertheless, the proposed scheme meets the space standards set out in the SPD.

There is some concern about provision for bicycle parking and waste storage. However, the proposal includes a bin store capable of accommodating six 240 litre bins for general waste and recycling, and a cycle store. There is no substantive evidence that these would be insufficient, and a condition would ensure that they are provided and retained.

Some respondents consider that the increased number of residents would place more pressure on infrastructure and services. Nonetheless, payment of the community infrastructure levy would ensure that a financial contribution is made towards the provision of facilities needed to support new development.

The proposal is for a residential use in a predominantly residential area on a busy main road. There is no substantive evidence that its use as a larger HMO would cause issues in terms of noise, anti-social behaviour or littering.

Comments have been made about the appearance of the existing extensions, but these are in situ and it is not proposed to alter the building’s external appearance.

There are also concerns that the proposal would affect property values, but this is not a planning matter relevant to my determination of the appeal.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested in the Council’s Planning Officer’s Report and considered them against the statutory tests outlined in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made minor amendments, where necessary, to ensure that the conditions comply with the relevant tests.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2). This is in the interest of certainty.

I have imposed conditions limiting occupation of the property to no more than eight residents (3) and requiring the provision of bin and cycle stores (4) to ensure satisfactory living conditions and promote sustainable travel choices.

I have not imposed the Council’s suggested conditions relating to renewable or low carbon energy, water efficiency, external lighting and ecological enhancements as I have not been directed to any evidence which indicates that these are necessary and reasonable in this case.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.