Appeal 6003354

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference to “retrospective” in the description of development provided does not itself constitute a form of development. However, the application form declares that the change of use has already started, and this was apparent during my site visit. I have therefore removed the term from the heading above and determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant states that the property has been used as an HMO for students for well over 10 years. But it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the use is lawful, within the context of an appeal under section 78. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether the use is lawful, they may make an application under section 191 of the 1990 Act.

During the appeal process, the appellant submitted a revised floor plan, which they have indicated shows the smallest first floor bedroom to be larger than previously shown. From a comparison of the drawings provided, I am satisfied that this amendment does not involve a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the application and that it does not cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. Accordingly, I have no reason not to accept this revised drawing.

The main issues are: • the effect of the appeal development on the mix of housing in the area; • the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and crime; and, • whether the appeal development provides acceptable living conditions for occupants, with particular reference to internal space.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling located in the [name] and Woodhouse area of Leeds. The surrounding area is characterised by dense rows and blocks of terraced housing interspersed with a substantial number of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The property has modest front and rear gardens, accommodation over two storeys, and a layout and size which are suitable for occupation as a family dwelling. The appeal property is located close to a range of local services and public transport links.

The site lies within an area subject to an Article 4 Direction which removes permitted development rights for changes of use from Use Class C3 to Use Class C4. Proposals for such changes of use must therefore be assessed against Policy H6 of the [name] (as amended November 2014) (CS). Policy H6 seeks, among other things, to avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for family occupation in areas of high HMO concentration and to avoid further harm arising from the cumulative impact of such uses on the balance and health of communities.

The supporting text to Policy H6 recognises that there may be limited circumstances in which changes of use to HMOs would not cause additional harm. These include situations where a street already contains such a high concentration of HMOs that the conversion of remaining C3 dwellings would not cause further detrimental harm, and where remaining C3 dwellings would be unappealing and effectively unsuitable for family occupation.

In this case, the appellant has not provided any substantive evidence addressing either of these exceptions. There is no assessment of the proportion of properties in C3 use within the street or its immediate context. As such, applying the exception relating to concentration without such evidence would risk undermining the purpose of Policy H6.

Similarly, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the appeal property is unappealing or effectively unsuitable for occupation as a family home. The property’s size, layout and access to local services do not suggest that it could not reasonably contribute to the supply of family housing. No marketing evidence or other such objective material has been submitted to demonstrate otherwise.

The appellant has indicated that the property has been used as an HMO for a long time. [name] have no reason to doubt this, it does not engage with the requirements of Policy H6, nor does it demonstrate that the appeal property falls within either of the exceptions identified in its supporting text. The duration of the use and the absence of identified complaints do not in themselves demonstrate that the loss of a C3 dwelling avoids harm to the mix of housing in the area.

In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I find that neither exception to Policy H6 applies in this instance. As such, the change of use results in the loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation and adds to an already high concentration of HMOs in the area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal development causes harm to the mix of housing in the area. Hence, it conflicts with Policy H6 of the CS, which seeks, among other things, to maintain balanced and sustainable communities and to avoid the loss of housing suitable for family occupation and further harm arising from high concentrations of HMOs.

A dwelling in Use Class C3 would typically be occupied by a single household, whereas an HMO is more likely to be occupied by unrelated adults with differing lifestyles, patterns of movement and activity. Such occupation is likely to result in activity occurring at a wider range of times of day and night, leading to increased comings and goings and greater potential for noise and disturbance when compared with a single dwellinghouse.

While several properties in the vicinity of the appeal site may already be in HMO use, this does not mean that further intensification is without consequence, nor that existing occupants, whether in HMOs or remaining C3 dwellings, are more tolerant of additional noise and disturbance. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied that, in an area characterised by a high concentration of HMOs, the appeal development adds cumulatively to existing levels of comings and goings, noise, and disturbance experienced by neighbouring residents.

The reasoned justification for Policy H6 recognises that high concentrations of HMOs can give rise to increased noise, disturbance, antisocial behaviour and crime. This reflects national planning objectives which seek to ensure that development creates safe environments in which crime and disorder do not undermine quality of life. I have been provided with no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the effects identified will not occur in this case.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal development conflicts with Policy H6 of the CS, which seeks to avoid detrimental impacts arising from high concentrations of HMOs, together with Policy P10 of the CS and saved Policy GP5 of the UDP, which seek, among other things, to protect residential amenity and to ensure that development creates a safe living environment and avoids loss of amenity through noise, disturbance and associated effects.

The Council refers to internal space standards in its assessment. However, neither main party has identified the source of those standards or demonstrated that they form part of an adopted development plan policy or other guidance published following public consultation to which I should attach significant weight. I have therefore determined this issue on the basis of what I saw at my site visit and my own assessment of the living conditions provided.

The bedroom in question, taking into account the amended plan submitted during the appeal, is limited in size. Its proportions and usable floor area result in a constrained and cramped internal environment, with limited space for furniture, storage or circulation. It is therefore my planning judgement that this does not provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupants.

While internal space standards may provide a useful benchmark, they are not necessarily determinative. In this case, irrespective of any numerical threshold, I conclude that the appeal development fails to provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for its occupants, with particular regard to internal space. This gives rise to further conflict with Policy H6, and with Policy P10 of the CS and saved Policy GP5 of the UDP, which seek, among other things, to ensure that development provides a satisfactory standard of amenity and avoids conditions that would be harmful to the living environment of occupants.

I acknowledge that the appeal property does not relate to a listed building, is not located within a conservation area or the Green Belt, and no protected trees would be affected by the appeal development. Furthermore, I note that the site lies within [name] 1, and no objections have been raised in respect of flood risk or drainage. However, these are neutral considerations and not benefits and so they do not alter my conclusions on the main issues in this appeal.

I have had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances; however, in this case these considerations do not outweigh the harm identified or justify a decision contrary to the development plan.

The appeal development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.