Appeal 6003654

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding that the description of development on the planning application form identified the building as a dwellinghouse (Class C3), it is currently in use as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) for a maximum of six people, in accordance with a recent planning permission1. Having sought submissions from the main parties, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the description of development set out above.

The appeal was accompanied by a [name] which the Council has confirmed satisfies the requirements of Policy D12(A) of the London Plan March 2021 (LP). I see no reason to disagree with the Council on this matter. The Council advised that it was no longer seeking to defend the reason for refusal relating to fire safety.

In light of the above, the main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area; • whether the proposal makes satisfactory provision for refuse and cycle storage; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference to noise and disturbance. 1 LPA reference 25/01300/FUL

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property being used as a HMO for a maximum of six people. The proposal would enlarge the roof space of the property so that the HMO could accommodate eight people.

The property has an existing two storey flat-roofed side extension which, although possessing a dummy pitch at the front, steps down visually from the roof of the original part of the building. The proposal would raise the roof height of the extension to match that of the original house. Whilst the resultant roof form would not be subordinate to the original dwelling, it would provide a visual enhancement by replacing the current ungainly dummy pitched roof, and overall its appearance would blend satisfactorily with the prevailing character of the surrounding area. The proposed rooflights would be similar to others found nearby and would not be harmful.

Whereas the original part of the house has a hipped roof, the proposal would terminate in a clipped gable, otherwise known as a half hip. In the vicinity of the site, existing dwellings prominently have fully hipped roofs, though there are examples of gabled roofs. The hipped roofs which characterise the houses in the immediate area provide a visual separation between them properties, ensuring that they do not appear crowded. The proposed half hip would depart from this prevailing characteristic and would result in the property and its immediate neighbour appearing cramped, with consequent harm to the street scene.

The host property and the adjoining semi-detached house share a double height rear projection, with a lower roof than that of the main building. A flat roofed dormer window is proposed at the rear, extending across the width of the appeal property as far as the proposed half hip. Although the proposed dormer would be slightly below the ridge of the main roof, it would be higher than the rear projection, with the result that it would be partially visible from [address], from where the rear of the property can be seen from a section of the highway. The proposed dormer would also be visible from the rear of neighbouring properties. [name] observed some flat roofed dormer windows in the vicinity of the site, including one at the rear of [address], I saw none as large as that proposed. It would be a dominating feature which would be out of character with, and harmful to the appearance of, the host property and the surrounding area.

I conclude, therefore, that whilst the overall roof form would be acceptable, the half hip and rear dormer window would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 of the LP and policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan Date of Adoption 26 April 2023 (BLP), which together seek to optimise site capacity through high quality design which either protects or enhances the area’s character and ensures that the height, scale and massing of proposals are complementary to the surrounding area.

The front of the property is hard surfaced and provides space for two cars to park. Although the permitted plans for a HMO for six people proposed a store containing three 240l bins plus food caddies, I saw on my site visit that four 240l bins and two 180l bins are currently being stored on site. The proposal is for a store accommodating four 240l bins plus food caddies, which would be slightly less than the current onsite provision. However, there is space to reconfigure the proposed layout of bins to provide more storage without impacting on the cycle store. [name] minded to allow the appeal, a condition would have been capable of dealing with this matter.

The consented scheme included secure storage for six bicycles, which would be increased to eight under this proposal, proportionate to the proposed increase in the number of occupiers. The plans show there is space to locate a cycle store of the required size next to the bin store, mirroring the cycle storage location shown in the consented HMO for six people. Whilst the plans do not show where the required two short stay cycle spaces would be located, there is space between the front of the building and the car parking spaces for such provision to be made. [name] minded to allow the appeal, I would have given consideration to attaching a

The consented scheme proposed bin and cycle stores at the front of the property in a similar location and of a similar design to those now proposed, although neither has been installed. The proposed bin and cycle stores would be larger than those consented, but not so large as to create an overly congested or visually intrusive frontage. The proposed storage would not therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the proposal makes satisfactory provision for bin and cycle storage, in accordance with policies D3 and T5 of the LP and policies DP1, DP5, DP11 and DP12 of the BLP. Together these policies set out detailed requirements for new housing, including HMOs, which encompass the provision of secure and convenient cycle parking facilities in accordance with adopted standards.

The area is residential in character and consists mainly of family housing, while the [name] is located opposite the site which is attended by children. As consented, the HMO accommodates six people, and the proposal would add a further two occupiers. The internal communal areas and outside space would remain unchanged. From my inspection of the property, whilst a snapshot in time, it appeared to be well maintained and managed.

Interested parties have reported disturbances linked to the HMO use, including drug-related activity, a domestic violence incident, cannabis odours, individuals entering gardens, and late night shouting, arguments and threats. By its nature, a HMO is an appropriate use in a residential area, and the Council and police have powers to deal with such issues should they arise. Whilst the occupiers of a HMO are likely to be independent adults with varying patterns of activity, meaning that comings and goings are likely to be more frequent than if the property were occupied by a large family, no evidence has been presented that the proposed increase in the number of occupiers from six to eight would materially alter the impact that the HMO has on neighbours’ living conditions.

I have been referred to a recent appeal decision which concerned noise and disturbance from a large HMO, but without details of the site and the proposal, I am unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from it.

I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance and would therefore provide satisfactory living conditions for neighbouring residents. The proposal would accord with policies DP5 and DP11 of the BLP, which require proposals for HMOs to ensure that existing properties’ amenity is appropriately protected from noise and other disturbances, and that HMOs would not have an adverse impact on the local area.

The Lesney Park Road Conservation Area includes sections of Park Crescent and [address]. Its significance derives from its origins as a Victorian and Edwardian suburb located on former parkland. It is characterised by large building plots which accommodate well-proportioned dwellings, with detailing typical of the era. Grass verges and street trees convey a spacious leafy character. The area contains a high proportion of locally listed buildings.

The appeal site is located in a part of Park Crescent which lies outside the conservation area and does not make any contribution to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The proposed roof extension and dormer window would be visible in glimpsed views between houses from a section of [address] within the conservation area, but not to the extent of adversely affecting the setting of the conservation area.

HMOs are a strategically important housing resource, providing flexible and relatively affordable accommodation for a broadly based occupier profile. They play an important role in supporting labour market flexibility, especially for new entrants, by providing accommodation close to jobs and services. HMOs represent an efficient use of existing housing stock for young professionals and those on lower incomes, who are often key workers. By operating in the private market, HMOs help reduce pressure on publicly provided housing.

The proposal would enlarge a sustainably-located HMO. The proposal generally accords with the Council’s adopted standards in terms of room sizes and the general quality of accommodation, and would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs in the area or have a negative effect on the surrounding highway network. I have found that it would provide suitable refuse and cycle storage and would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

However, these benefits do not overcome or justify the harm I have identified in respect of character and appearance. For these reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.