Appeal 6003440

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at my visit that the existing bungalow has been extended at the rear and the roof enlarged through the construction of dormer windows. I have referred to the appeal bungalow shown on the existing drawings as the pre-existing bungalow. As-built, those enlargements are different to those shown on the proposed drawings in a number of respects, including the styles of some windows and their apertures, and the height of the rear extension at its junction with the pre-existing bungalow. The proposed vehicle crossover had not been constructed at the time of my visit and nor had the proposed bin store.

Consequently, I have treated the appeal scheme as a proposal. In the interests of fairness, I have determined the appeal based on the drawings that were before the Council and subject to consultation with interested parties. [name] did not enter the appeal building, I was able to access the grounds of the appeal site and assess the main issues based on my observations and the drawings and written evidence and plans before me.

Since the appeal was lodged the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40, March 2026 (“the SLP”) has been adopted, replacing the previous Spelthorne Borough Council Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Adopted 2009, including Policy EN1 that is listed on the decision notice, and which forms no part of my determination of the appeal. In the interests of fairness, the main parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the SLP to their respective cases in this appeal and I have taken account of any responses received. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by me taking the SLP policies into account in determining this appeal.

Since the appeal was lodged, an appeal1 against a similar development of the appeal property, involving its extension and enlargement, and conversion to an 8 person House in [name] (HMO), has been dismissed. In the interests of fairness, the main parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the relevance of that appeal decision to their respective cases in this appeal and I have taken account of any responses received. I have referred to that scheme as “the 8-person HMO scheme” in the decision.

The main issues in this appeal are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, (ii) whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to outlook from ground floor bedrooms and the amount of outdoor amenity space, and (iii) if harm arises whether it is outweighed by any fallback position.

The prevailing townscape in the residential area of the appeal site mainly consists of a mix of single storey and two storey properties set on consistent building lines in detached and semi-detached configurations. Whilst a number of buildings accommodate roof dormers of varying sizes, the roofscape in the street scene is predominantly defined by pitched roofs, including a sizeable proportion of hipped roof forms, that contribute to a visual consistency between buildings in the street scene.

The submitted drawings show the appeal property in its pre-existing condition as a modest single storey hipped roofed bungalow of a type relatively common in the street scene. It was similar in scale and appearance to the existing bungalows in the same row at Numbers 33 and 35. Consequently, the pre-existing bungalow at the appeal site is consistent with the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed dormers and extensions are substantially identical to those put forward in the earlier 8-person HMO scheme. I agree with the previous Inspector’s assessment that the increased bulk of the dormers would be prominent in street-level views. Because they would span nearly the full width of the pitched roof, they would look large and visually dominant on the bungalow. As a result, the proposals would be out of proportion with the host dwelling’s roof and incongruous within the wider roofscape of the street scene.

The incongruity of the proposed dormers would be particularly obvious by comparison to the roof lines and forms of the nearby bungalows at Numbers 33 and 35. Together they would create a top-heavy and disjointed roof line, jarringly at odds with the modest form of the pre-existing bungalow and the largely proportionate roof additions to other properties nearby. Those are generally set lower into the roof slope and retain the prominence of the original roof shape.

The full massing of the rear extension would not be visible in street level views. However, its depth and plot coverage would be significant relative to that of the pre-existing bungalow. It would reduce the area of garden beyond its rear wall to well below the prevailing sizes of nearby gardens. 1 APP/Z3635/W/25/3374847

Cumulatively, the proposed extensions and enlargements to the bungalow would result in the building having an excessive scale and massing relative to its pre-existing form and plot. As such, it would amount to an overdevelopment of the property that would be exacerbated by its proposed frontage hard surfacing and parking, and the sizeable bin store that would be considerably larger than any others in the area.

For those reasons, the appeal proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to SLP Policy PS2 insofar as it requires a high standard in the design and layout of new development, which makes a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area, including with regard to the scale, height, proportions and other characteristics of adjoining buildings and land.

The development would also be contrary to Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), which require planning decisions to ensure that developments are well-designed, visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment.

It is reasonable to suppose that occupation of the proposed HMO would be different to that of a conventional family home, particularly the relatively modest pre-existing bungalow. Occupants of the proposed HMO would be expected to live their lives more independently with their own day-to-day routines and patterns of comings and goings, including their own visitors/guests. The proposed HMO would have a communal living room of an equivalent size to the kitchen, where meals could be shared and occupants could socialise.

However, occupants would be expected to keep their belongings within their bedroom and are likely to highly value the privacy of their own bedroom space not only to sleep, but to study, work, and relax. Therefore, I share the previous Inspector’s view that the overall quality and quantity of the personal bedroom space for each occupant and that of the communal spaces are important considerations.

Compared to the 8-person HMO scheme, there would be 1 fewer car parking space on the frontage of the appeal site, with a sizeable bin store in its place. However, the outlook from the bay window of proposed bedroom 2 would be substantially the same and severely restricted by parked cars. The large bin store would be lower and narrower than a typical car and would not unduly restrict the outlook from bedroom 1.

The closeness of those parking spaces and the bin store to the front windows of bedrooms 1 and 2 would not only necessitate regular closure of windows to prevent engine fumes and odour from entering, but also the closure of any blinds or curtains to maintain adequate privacy, which would consequentially affect access to light. As the side window of proposed bedroom [address] to the side boundary with Number 33 it would offer little outlook or access to light.

Bedrooms 1, 3, 4 and 5 would have windows facing a relatively narrow strip of proposed grass between the side of the building and the boundary, which is currently largely hard surfaced. The privacy for occupants of those rooms would be compromised due to the ability of the HMOs occupants to use that strip of land to reach the garden and obtain views directly into the rooms, with the alternative of closed curtains harmfully reducing access to light and outlook from those rooms.

Whilst the communal living room would provide access through the building to reach the rear garden, there would appear to be nothing to stop occupants from using that strip of land, including to access the cycle storage facility. Given that the garden may be occupied for extended periods, the potential loss of privacy for the occupants of bedroom 5 would also be significant given that its glazed doors would face onto the communal rear garden.

Occupants of the proposed HMO are likely to value outdoor space for relaxation and well-being, particularly during good weather, when they are likely to wish to spend more of their leisure time outdoors. The drawings are annotated to show an external garden area of some [address] metres. However, the area of usable rear garden beyond the proposed HMOs rear wall would be substantially the same size as that proposed in the previous 8-person HMO scheme, which is labelled on the drawings as covering an area of about [address] metres. As this area would accommodate a large cycle storage unit, the amount of useable space would be less than [address] metres.

Although external space would exist to the side of the building and to its front, this would be more akin to functional or circulatory space, rather than amenity space of a practical and usable size where residents could relax. The evidence indicates that the usable rear garden would fall well short of the 10-metre depth for rear gardens as set out under the Council’s guidance in the [name] of [name] and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD). The SPD also indicates that dwellings of three bedrooms or more should have at least [address] metres of external space.

I share the previous Inspector’s approach that it is reasonable to consider the SPD’s standards in assessing the suitability of external space to be provided. The amount of usable outdoor amenity space provided would be some way short of 70 sqm metres. Occupancy of the proposed 7-person HMO would be likely to exceed that of a conventional dwelling by some margin. The SPD standards are indicators that adds to the weight of evidence that the proposed outdoor amenity space would represent a cramped space that would fall well short of that required to adequately accommodate the proposed number of occupants at the HMO.

I have visited the appeal site and seen the proposed garden. Even if I were to depart from the SPD’s numerical guidelines and standards, it would not alter my judgement that the outdoor amenity space would represent an unduly cramped space relative the number of occupants within the HMO, thus resulting in harm to their living conditions. Given the restricted size of the rear garden, it would be expected to place occupants of the HMO and their visitors immediately in front of the wide glazed doors of bedroom 5, as set out above.

Based on the extracts before me, the Landlords’ guide to standards for houses in multiple occupation appears to set no standards for HMO gardens. However, the quantity and quality of outdoor amenity space is nonetheless a relevant factor in assessing whether, in land use planning terms, a scheme would be sufficiently well-designed to provide satisfactory living conditions for its occupants. In this instance an absence of a standardised requirement for HMO garden sizes does not equate to an absence of harm from the size of the outdoor amenity space proposed in this appeal.

The bedrooms, kitchen, and communal living area are shown to exceed the minimum acceptable room sizes set out in the [name] to Standards for Houses in [name]. However, as these internal spaces serve a different function from outdoor amenity space, they cannot be regarded as a substitute for the provision of adequately sized and usable external amenity space.

For those reasons I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to outlook from ground floor bedrooms and the amount of outdoor amenity space, contrary to SLP Policy PS2 insofar as it requires a high standard in the design and layout of new development, including with due regard to the principles in any design policies or codes.

The development would also be contrary to Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework insofar as planning decisions should achieve well-designed development and ensure a high standard of amenity for its users.

It is common ground between the main parties that the hip-to-gable extension, the proposed dormer windows and the rear extension have gained prior approval from the Council under separate applications, with a lawful development certificate also issued for hardstanding and changes to fenestration. There is no dispute from the Council that the proposed plans before me reflect the size, shape and position of the works granted prior approval.

The Council casts doubt over whether those approvals represent a genuine fallback development. However, I find no compelling reasons to step away from the conclusion reached by the previous Inspector for the 8-person HMO scheme that those previous approvals represent a significant fallback position for the appellant as they can be implemented irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

I therefore share the previous Inspector’s finding that the appellant could physically alter and enlarge the appeal property in a substantially similar manner to that proposed in this appeal, through the schemes already granted prior approval and/or lawful development certificates. [name] saw at my site visit the pre-existing bungalow has been enlarged through a rear hip to gable extension, roof dormers, and a single storey rear extension. Consequently, this is a material consideration which counteracts the identified development plan conflict on the first main issue above, such that the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area does not weigh against it.

In respect of the second main issue above, there is a further fallback position where the main parties agree that planning permission would not be required to use the appeal property as a small Class C4 HMO for no more than 6 occupants. That fallback position would not enable occupation of the building as a 7-person HMO. I share the previous Inspector’s conclusion that this would involve fewer occupants and a materially different ratio of occupants to outdoor amenity space. It would also be likely to involve a materially different internal layout within the building, and such a layout is not before me.

The appeal scheme would therefore have a greater adverse impact on the living conditions of its future occupants than the fallback small Class C4 HMO development would have on its occupants. Consequently, the fallback development does not negate the harm identified on the second main issue. That a Class 4 HMO use of the appeal property does not require planning permission is not necessarily an indicator that its occupants would be provided with satisfactory living conditions.

The appellant refers to several decisions by the Council where fallback developments were given substantial weight, and it contends that the Council has approved a HMO with a more constrained outlook than the appeal scheme. The characteristics of each site are rarely the same and the circumstances that applied to other cases may not be directly comparable to those before me. As full details of the circumstances that led to those schemes being granted permission are not before me, it has not been shown that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. I have determined the appeal on its own merits based on the evidence before me and site-specific considerations and judgements. In any case, I have carefully considered the appellant’s fallback position in assessing the main issues above and in reaching a decision on the appeal.

The matters raised in the representations of interested parties, where not addressed under my main issues above, are largely addressed in the Council Officer’s report. They are also broadly similar to several matters addressed by the previous Inspector for the 8-person HMO scheme. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons it is unnecessary for me to reach a finding on those other matters as they would not have altered the overall outcome of the appeal.

The only evidence that is before me on the Council’s current housing land supply is that contained within the appeal decision for the 8-person HMO scheme, which referred to a housing land supply of some 2.3 years, which represents a substantial shortfall against the requirement. I have not been advised whether the recent adoption of the SLP demonstrates a 5 year supply of housing land and the Council’s Housing Delivery Test results are not before me.

Consequently, I have determined the appeal on the basis that Paragraph 11.d) of the Framework is relevant and the policies most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. However, in this instance SLP Policy PS2, which is recently adopted, is consistent with the Framework’s requirement for well-designed development that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment, and which functions well and provides a high standard of amenity for future users. Therefore, the conflict with SLP Policy PS2 in respect of the character and appearance of the area and failure to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation should be afforded significant weight.

Paragraph 11.d)ii. of the Framework states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

Compared to the existing dwelling the proposed HMO would provide a denser level of accommodation that is likely to be more affordable to a greater number of persons, particularly single occupants. It is likely to contribute positively to the availability, mix and choice of accommodation in the area, where there are good opportunities for travel by sustainable modes to access services and facilities.

However, I share the view of the previous Inspector that using the pre-existing dwelling as a HMO would not increase the overall number of residential units, and it would make no material contribution to the supply of housing. As such, given the scale of the proposal and considering the baseline social benefit in having the building remain as a single dwelling, the benefits of the proposed 7-person HMO attract only limited weight in favour of the appeal. Economic benefits from construction works and additional residents living, working and spending money in the local area would be similarly limited.

The proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the Framework that require development to provide a high standard of amenity for its users. Therefore, the development is not well-designed and is contrary to Framework paragraph 129 insofar as it requires decisions to recognise the importance of securing well-designed, attractive, and healthy places. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and creating high quality places. Paragraph 139 directs that development not well-designed should be refused.

Consequently, the adverse impacts on the living conditions of future occupants that would arise from granting the development planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including those specific key policies. Therefore, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would have a greater adverse impact on the living conditions of its future occupants than the fallback small Class C4 HMO development would have on its occupants. Consequently, the fallback development does not negate the harm identified on the second main issue.

I conclude that the conflict with SLP Policy PS2 is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the benefits of the development, the provisions of the Framework and the fallback developments, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the development is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.