Appeal 6003771

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for an HMO, a House in [name].

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to internal living space and facilities; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal development proposes to convert an existing two-storey commercial building into a 20 room HMO. While each room would benefit from an en-suite bathroom and adequate access to light and ventilation, future occupants would be reliant on communal facilities for day-to-day living. The communal facilities would include 2 kitchens, a lounge/dining area, utility room and rest room to the ground floor, and 2 kitchens, 2 dining areas and a lounge to the first floor.

The Council’s guidance set out in ‘Houses in [name]: Wakefield Council’s Adopted Standards (2018)’ ([name]) is intended primarily to inform licensing decisions. However, as it provides a structured assessment of internal space and amenity for shared accommodation and has been treated as a relevant consideration in an earlier appeal decision at the site (APP/X4725/W/25/3359187 dated 12 May 2025), I afford it significant weight in this case.

As shown on the submitted plans and described in the Council Officer’s report, the communal floorspace would, assuming single occupancy of each bedroom, meet the minimum numerical requirements set out in the [name]. However, those standards represent a baseline rather than an optimal provision and place clear emphasis on the functionality, distribution and usability of shared facilities. In this regard, the proposal would provide only a single lounge on each floor, both located towards one end of the building. Given the linear form of the property and the number of occupants proposed on each floor, this arrangement would limit the accessibility and usability of the communal living areas for some occupants and would not provide evenly distributed shared space throughout the building.

In addition, the combined lounge and dining area proposed at ground-floor level is positioned between entrances to the kitchens and the principal access routes serving the lounge and communal rest room, including onward access to external space. As a result, a significant proportion of the floorspace would function as circulation space rather than as usable living or dining accommodation. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the space would provide sufficient room as required by the [name]. This significantly restricts the practical usefulness of the communal accommodation, notwithstanding that the headline floorspace figure exceeds the minimum requirement.

Taken together, the constrained distribution and layout of the communal accommodation would result in shared spaces that would be limited in practical terms and would be likely to lead to cramped shared facilities. This would fail to provide a good standard of amenity for future occupants. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy LP56 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (2024) (LP), which seeks, among other things, to ensure that development provides a high standard of amenity for its users.

The appeal site lies within a mixed-use, although predominantly quiet residential area, close to the town centre, that includes established residential properties. The appeal building is a prominent detached structure with the main entrance facing directly towards nearby dwellings on Newgate and The Mount, placing the access point in close and direct relationship with existing homes.

An HMO of the scale proposed would accommodate many unrelated individuals, each of whom is likely to have differing routines. This would be likely to result in frequent movements to and from the property, including throughout the day and night, giving rise to a sustained level of activity rather than movements concentrated within a generally defined working-day pattern.

The appellant places weight on the former use of the building as offices, noting that it previously accommodated a substantial number of staff and visitors. However, office use is generally confined to defined working hours and follows a more structured pattern of arrivals and departures. By contrast, a large HMO would be likely to be occupied continuously, including evenings, nights and weekends. I therefore do not consider the former office use to provide an appropriate comparator for assessing the effect of the proposal on living conditions.

Given the relationship of the principal entrance to nearby dwellings, this level of activity would be readily perceptible to neighbouring occupants. The cumulative effect of arrivals, departures, visitors and deliveries would materially increase the likelihood of noise, disturbance and congregation outside the building. Moreover, the limited internal communal space, as considered above, would further increase this likelihood, as occupants may seek opportunities to socialise or meet basic needs away from the building, increasing the use of external areas and the immediate street environment.

The appellant refers to proposed management arrangements, including the vetting of occupants, the use of closed-circuit television and ongoing oversight of the premises, in part through the incorporation of on-site management accommodation. Such measures may assist with the general operation of the building. However, they would not materially reduce the level or frequency of comings and goings arising from a development of this scale, nor prevent disturbance resulting from the independent movement of many residents on differing schedules. In this context, the proposed management measures would not adequately mitigate the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants.

The cumulative effect of activity generated by a large HMO in this prominent and quiet position would erode the reasonable living conditions enjoyed by nearby residents. I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It follows that the scheme would conflict with Policies LP56 and LP67 of the LP, which together seek to protect, among other things, residential amenity from unacceptable noise and disturbance.

As the appeal site lies within The Mount Conservation Area (CA), I have had due regard to the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The significance of the CA derives largely from its residential character and its substantial 19th century detached villas. The appeal building is a later commercial building which contrasts with that prevailing character but is not a negative component of the area. [name] have found that the proposal would harm the living conditions of nearby occupants by reason of noise and disturbance, that is a distinct matter from the effect on the significance of the CA as a heritage asset. As no external alterations are proposed, and the change of use would not materially alter the building’s existing relationship with the character and appearance of the area, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

I have taken into account the benefits of bringing a vacant building back into use and the contribution the scheme would make to the supply of housing in a location close to services and public transport. These matters weigh modestly in favour of the proposal. I have also had regard to the appellant’s comments regarding the condition of the building and the vandalism and anti-social activity that is said to have occurred since its previous use ceased. While the current condition of the property is unfortunate, it does not of itself render the appeal proposal acceptable in planning terms. Moreover, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified in relation to the living conditions of future occupants and neighbouring residents.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.