Appeal 6003446

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made against Southampton City Council by [name] ([name]). This application is the subject of a separate

The appellant has submitted a plan with the appeal ([name].1115-25-4) which shows an amended parking arrangement. This represents a minor alteration to the original scheme on which the Council has had the opportunity to comment. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced, and I therefore have had consideration to this plan in determining this appeal

My attention has been drawn to a decision at the appeal property1 for a change of use to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for 6 persons. The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on this decision. It is mandatory for me to take account of the most relevant and up to date information in reaching a decision. I therefore have had regard to this decision in the determination of this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in particular in relation to noise and disturbance and parking pressure. 1 26/00112/FUL

[site address] is a modest 3-bedroom semi-detached dwelling. [address] is located within a quiet, predominantly residential area in which on-street parking is controlled by residents’ parking permits. The proposal is for the change of use of the dwelling to an 8-bedroom HMO.

The Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (PSSPD) (2011) states that an 8-bedroom HMO results in a maximum permitted parking provision of 4 spaces. Occupiers of the HMO would be provided with 2-offroad car parking spaces, and future occupiers would be eligible for 2 on-street parking permits. The level of parking provision meets the Council’s parking standards for an 8-bedroom HMO. The site is in an accessible location in relation to shops and other facilities and within walking distance of the nearest bus stop. Provision for cycle storage would further encourage sustainable modes of travel. Given this, occupants of the HMO would have a range of transport modes available to them, and they would not necessarily have to rely on a car for day-to-day requirements. This would likely lessen reliance on the private car and so therefore car parking.

There is no evidence before me that the proposal would worsen competition for on-street parking spaces. Consequently, I find that the proposal would not result in increased parking stress for residents of nearby properties.

The development would see the intensification of the use of the dwelling from a modest 3-bedroom dwelling to an 8-bedroom HMO, representing a significant increase in occupation. The day-to-day activities of 8 individuals, with unrelated occupiers living individually of one another, would be noticeably different to that of a family household. This would include a significant increase in comings and goings and the potential for increased noise generated by occupants.

It is proposed to upgrade sound insulation to the party walls to comply with building regulations for HMOs, which would go some way to minimising the transfer of internal noise between the appeal property and the adjoining dwelling. However, the HMO’s front door, side access, rear garden, window openings and parking area would be sited close to neighbouring properties 15 and [address] and their associated openings, front door and private amenity space. The comings and goings and noise associated with the use of these areas of the HMO would be greater than that generated by the consented use of the property as a 3- bedroom family dwelling and that which would result from the approved use of the dwelling as a 6-bedroom HMO. The increased noise and disturbance associated with the intensification of the use of the property would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 15 and 19.

In support of the proposal the appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal at 9 Framfield Way2 in which the Inspector concluded that a change of use from a consented 6-bed HMO to an 8-bed HMO would not result in material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The full details of that case are not before me, nonetheless I note that the Inspector describes that appeal site as comprising a detached dwelling with a passageway at each side with a front door which is not immediately adjacent to neighbouring dwellings. This differs from the appeal property, a semi-detached dwelling with no passageway separation to the neighbouring dwelling No 15 and immediately adjacent front doors. Given this, it 2 APP/T1410/W/25/3372862 appears that the site characteristics at [address] differ from those at the appeal site. This reduces the weight to be afforded to this decision.

I find no evidence that the proposal would result in increased parking stress and therefore find no conflict with the PSSPD or policy CS19 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015) and policy SDP5 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) (LPR). However, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties 15 and [address] through increased noise and disturbance. This would conflict with those aims of LPR policies SDP1 and H4 which seek to ensure that development isn’t detrimental to the amenities of the residents of adjacent or nearby properties.

I also find conflict with the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (2016) which requires that the impacts arising from proposals, including the residential amenity of existing occupiers, will be assessed in accordance with the council’s relevant development management policies and guidance.

To address the potential impacts of the development on European sites, including the Solent and Dorset Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), the Solent and [name]/ Ramsar Site and the New Forest SPA/ Ramsar Site/ Special Area of Conservation (SAC) a [name] which includes a contribution of £696 towards habitat mitigation, has been submitted. However, as I have found harm in relation to the main issue, it is not necessary in this instance to undertake an appropriate assessment to consider the development’s effect on these European sites.

Future occupiers would be provided with bedrooms of adequate size and satisfactory communal living facilities, and the development makes adequate provision for refuse and cycle storage. Nonetheless, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case, therefore these matters weigh neutrally, rather than in favour of the proposal.

The development would result in the reuse of an existing building and would make a contribution to the supply of low-cost shared housing in an area with good access to facilities, services and public transport, contributing towards meeting local housing need. These are matters which weigh in favour of the proposal. However, these benefits are tempered by the scale of the development and would fail to outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the development’s effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR