Appeal 6003181

The appeal is dismissed.

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

It is beyond the scope of this appeal to determine the existing lawful use of the appeal property. Nonetheless, and irrespective of whether the property is in use as a C3 dwellinghouse or a C4 small House in [name] (HMO), the change of use from C3 to C4 and vice versa is permitted by Part 3, Class L of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the appeal property can lawfully be used as either a C3 dwellinghouse occupied by a single household or a C4 HMO for up to six unrelated occupants without the need to apply for planning permission.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the mix of housing in the borough, with particular regard to family housing and HMOs; the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property; and the provision of highway infrastructure.

Policy H9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) (LLP) supports proposals for HMOs where, amongst other things, it would not result in the loss of housing suitable for occupation by families. As such, there is a clear policy requirement to protect existing family housing in the borough.

Housing suitable for families is defined in the supporting text to LLP Policy H6 as houses, purpose-built maisonettes and duplex dwellings with ground floor access to a rear garden, with three or more bedrooms. Neither the policy nor the supporting text makes reference to Use Class C3.

Even if the appeal property is occupied as a C4 HMO, in its current form there is no clear evidence that it is not suitable for occupation by a family for the purposes of LLP Policy H9. In coming to this view, I have had regard to the flexibilities between use class C3 and C4 under the GPDO which mean if a property was in use as a C4 HMO the family housing may not be permanently lost. I have also taken account of the suitability of the layout shown on the existing floor plans which may well be attractive for multi-generational households.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions1. However, insufficient evidence has been provided about those schemes and therefore it is not clear if they are directly comparable to this case, particularly with regard to the internal layout of the properties and their suitability for occupation by a family. In addition, the [address] case was in a different borough with a different development plan context. In any event, I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and come to my own view.

It is not disputed that the occupation of the appeal property by 8 unrelated people would fall outside of any use class. As a result of the increased number of bedrooms, as a matter of fact and degree, the function and intensity of the use of the property would be different to occupation by a single household or up to six unrelated people. It would therefore be materially different to a C3 or C4 use.

The planning consequence of the proposed change of use is that the appeal property would no longer be available for accommodation by a single household without the need for planning permission. Therefore, the change of use of the appeal property to a large HMO would result in the permanent loss of housing suitable for occupation by families, that the development plan seeks to prevent, further reducing the availability of family homes. Notwithstanding that HMOs are an important element of the housing stock in the borough, the need for family houses is such that they warrant protection through development plan policy.

LLP Policy H9 also requires that HMO proposals demonstrate that the scheme would meet an identified local need. While the supporting text to the policy indicates the type of evidence that should be provided no such evidence has been submitted. Even taking into account the general benefits to the supply and mix of houses that the proposal would deliver, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposal would meet an identified local need. Therefore, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of LLP Policy H9 criterion ii.

To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the mix of housing in the borough, with particular regard to family housing and HMOs, and would be in conflict with LLP Policy H9. Character and appearance 1 Appeal refs: APP/N5660/W/25/3366452; APP/N5660/W/24/3337243; and APP/U5360/W/24/3352804.

The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling located on the corner of [address] and [address] within a predominantly residential area. It has previously been extended at the rear, including at ground floor level, and there are a number of other ground floor extensions to the rear of the row of terraces of different designs, heights and depths which creates a varied character and appearance.

The proposed ground floor extension would result in a modest increase in height and depth in comparison to the existing situation and would be different to the nearby ground floor rear extensions because it includes a wrap-around element. Taking account of the prevailing characteristics of the adjoining properties, the appeal site’s corner plot location and generous rear garden, the proposal would be proportionate to the appeal property and would not dominate the appeal site. It would therefore comply with the advice contained within the [name] 4 (2023) regarding wrap-around extensions. Furthermore, by adding to the variety of appearance at the rear of the terraces the proposal would sit comfortably within its surroundings.

The proposal has been reduced in height from a previous scheme that was dismissed at appeal2. It would not be overtly discernible above the boundary treatment in views from [address] when facing the appeal site. There would be glimpsed views of the proposal on approach to the site from [address] because of the topography of the locality, however in these views the proposal would be filtered by vegetation and so it would not be visually intrusive, particularly when seen in the context of the other varied ground floor extensions in the area.

In conclusion, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property. It would therefore be in accordance with LLP policies Q5 and Q11 which include a requirement for development to sustain and reinforce local distinctiveness and positively respond to its surroundings.

The Council refer to the need for an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act to discourage the use of the private motor vehicle and encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. While it is indicated that LLP policies require that all new development should make car club and cycle hire membership available and that the controlled parking zone scheme is continuously under review and expansion this is not supported in evidence. Furthermore, there is no substantiated evidence that the appeal site location has existing parking pressures or whether the proposal would add to any existing issue to the extent that it would adversely affect highway safety.

As a result, the requirement for an obligation is not clearly supported by development plan policy and there is little certainty that without such an obligation there would be material planning harm. I cannot be confident therefore that the obligation sought would meet the relevant statutory tests, namely necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable harm that would require highway infrastructure mitigation. There would be no conflict with 2 Appeal ref: APP/N5660/D/25/3364845. LLP Policy D4 which requires that Section 106 planning obligations are sought to ensure that proposals provide or fund local improvements to mitigate the impacts of the development.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.