Appeal 6003558

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of a dwellinghouse C3 to a 7-bed sui generis HMO and refuse and cycle storage on site at [site address] , Southend-on-Sea, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01427/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

Whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the outlook from bedrooms 2, 5 and 6 and the accessibility of bathroom facilities for the latter.

The proposal relates to a two-storey mid terrace house within a largely residential part of urban Southend and is situated slightly less than a mile from the town centre. The Council’s refusal was not over the principle of the proposed change of use, just the standard of living conditions provided for future occupiers. In this regard, I accept the uncontested conclusions of the appellant’s assessment1, applying the tests prescribed by BRE guidance and [name] 17037:2018, that all the rooms in the proposed HMO would receive acceptable internal daylight levels.

All the proposed bedrooms, together with the ensuite shower room and kitchen/dining facilities, satisfy the size standards adopted by the Council2. However, ground floor bedroom 2 would have a narrow outlook from French windows, seeing up to the side elevation of the house immediately to the rear. This view would be confined between the two-storey outrigger of No 43 and that of the neighbouring house, along with the tall, close-boarded fence along the side boundary. On the upper floor, Bedroom 5 would have a somewhat wider outlook 1 Internal Daylight Assessment by T16 Design. [name] 6775 Issue 1, November 2025 2 The Essex HMO Amenity Standards 2019 than bedroom 2. Confined between the two-storey outrigger structures to either side, views from a single window here would be over adjacent parts of the back gardens leading up to the side elevation of the next house. Bedroom 6 would benefit from two windows. However, these would have a highly curtailed outlook due to facing directly onto the nearby side of next door’s two storey outrigger.

These rooms would comprise the principal living quarters for each of the respective occupiers. The constrained outlooks of each would be negative features of the overall quality of living environment offered by this proposed accommodation. However, significant weight is given to the existing fallback situation of implementing as permitted development either of two 6-bed HMO schemes3 at this property, whereby the outlook and lighting of all three rooms would be the same as in this current proposal. The Council recognises the fallback situation but makes a case for such living conditions placing greater respite value on use of shared facilities, under higher pressure with an additional seventh bedroom. However, I find this inadequate substantiation for a finding of unacceptable living conditions. This is given that the shared kitchen/living accommodation would meet the adopted [name] standards and its size, and the nature of the bedroom outlooks, would all be broadly comparable to proposals for eight4 and nine-bed5 HMO schemes allowed nearby.

All the bedrooms would have ensuite shower rooms, apart from first floor bedroom 6 which would rely on a communal facility near the foot of the stairs. The appellant has referred to two recent [name] appeals where the same issue arose. In dismissing an appeal6 for an 8 bedroom HMO at [address], the Inspector nonetheless found a bedroom’s reliance on a shower room along a corridor at the same level, whilst less desirable than an en-suite facility, not so inconvenient as to amount to harmful living conditions.

The appeal7 allowed at [address] was also for a 7-bed HMO with all but one bedroom having en-suite bathroom facilities. The Inspector found the reliance of a first floor bedroom on a separate ground floor shower room, whilst less than desirable than an en-suite facility, not to be so inconvenient as to amount to harmful living conditions. The situation in this case is similar to that proposed at No 11, with the door to bedroom 6, without ensuite facilities, being next to the top of the stairs leading to the shower room at the bottom. Therefore, I reach the same conclusion as in that appeal.

Based on the foregoing, I consider that this proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, including in respect of the outlook from bedrooms 2, 5 and 6 and the accessibility of separate bathroom facilities for the latter. Consequently, the proposal would satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 in respect of achieving well-designed places, including a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The proposal would comply with policies KP2 and CP4 of the 2007 [name] and policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the 2015 Development Management Document. This is insofar as these 3 Council ref 25/00959/[name] of Lawfulness – Proposed - granted 2 September 2025 and Council ref 25/01614/[name] of Lawfulness – Proposed - granted 12 January 2026. 4 Council ref 25/00062/FUL [address] [postcode] 5 Council ref 25/00091/FUL [address] [postcode] 6 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/W/25/3373130 dated 8 December 2025 7 Appeal Ref APP/D1590/W/25/3370348 dated 14 October 2025 policies address the standards of living accommodation sought through the

The further concerns raised by nearby residents have been taken into consideration. Regarding the proposal exacerbating on-street parking stress in the area, the Council applies no specific on-site standards for HMOs. The hard surfaced front garden currently permits the parking of two cars. Given the lawful use of the property as a six-person HMO, the addition of just one further single bedroom, coupled with good accessibility to public transport and other facilities, means the proposal would be acceptable in highway safety and parking terms. On the same basis, there is no evidence the proposal would exceed the capacity of local infrastructure in any other respect.

Private profit motives and effects on property values are not valid planning considerations in determining this appeal. Similarly, the prospect of anti-social behaviour and drug/alcohol misuse fall outside the scope of land use considerations.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, applying those meeting the tests set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Amendments are made where necessary, including in the interests of succinctness. In addition to the standard three year time period for commencement, a condition is also necessary in the interest of certainty which specifies the approved drawings.

To ensure satisfactory arrangements for the storage and management of household waste, conditions ensure the prior provision of the bin storage area and adherence to an agreed Waste Management Plan. To encourage sustainable travel modes, a condition is necessary to secure the proposed bicycle store.

A single condition seeks to secure agreed water efficiency, energy efficiency and other sustainability measures so that the approved development meets national and development plan policies concerning these matters.

The decision to allow the proposal gains support from a fallback permission to convert this property into a HMO for not more than six residents. Consequently, a condition is necessary which establishes that the permission granted is not for more than seven residents. Finally, in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, a condition is required governing construction times.

Subject to the conditions discussed, the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and therefore I conclude that the appeal succeeds.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 949 – 104 Rev 02, 949 – 100 and 949 – 103.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted refuse and recyclable bin storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with the bin storage shown on plan nos. 949-100 and 949-103 and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, including how and where the waste and recycling will be presented on collection day. The WMP shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the cycle storage shall be provided in accordance with the details in plans 949-100 and 949 – 103 and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of water efficiency, energy efficiency and other sustainability measures to be included in the scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter implemented as approved. These measures shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the HMO hereby permitted shall not at any time be adapted to enable formation of more than seven bedrooms and the property shall not be occupied by more than seven residents at any one time with all seven bedrooms being for single occupancy only.

Hours of construction works associated with this consent shall take place only between the hours of 8am - 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am - 1pm Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays. ---