Appeal 6003779

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of the property from a single family dwelling (C3) to a House in [name] (HMO) (Class C4) (5 persons). Associated amenity space & cycle parking at [site address] , [site address] , Haringey, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/3155, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • Whether adequate provision would be made for refuse; and • Whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable concentration of Houses in [name] (HMOs), including having regard to its amenity impacts on the area.

None of the evidence before me specifies the precise amount of refuse storage necessary to serve the HMO proposed. The proposed block plan1 depicts 4 bins which I have no reason to conclude would amount to an inadequate total amount of refuse storage. These bins would be located within the property’s front yard, but some of them would inappropriately block the path between the pavement and the property’s front door.

However, the yard is quite spacious, and an existing hardstand already covers much of it. It contains no lawn, but there is a planter. At the time I conducted my visit, there were 3 bins within the front yard, none of them were obstructing the path 1 Existing and Proposed Block Plan 202479.P.1002 [name] to the front door, and a considerable proportion of the yard’s hardstand remained available for use. Therefore, the front yard is of a size and layout which could adequately cater for 4 bins and more if required. As a result, I am confident that the quantum of refuse storage necessary to serve the HMO could be provided within the front yard.

The yard already benefits from a boundary wall with railings and higher brick piers. This existing arrangement would provide some screening of the bins to serve the development. Furthermore, through some modest changes, forms of additional, effective screening could be incorporated.

Given my findings on refuse storage requirements, the yard’s size and layout, and screening, the imposition of a condition would ensure that the proposal would be served by adequate refuse provision such that no nuisance or harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of any occupants would result. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policies DM4 and DM17 of Haringey’s Development Management Development Plan Document (the DMDPD). Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies require the provision of adequate storage for all required refuse types, of a design that is convenient and accessible, and that is appropriately located and screened.

Policy DM17 of the DMDPD relates to HMOs. The Policy is divided into two parts. Part ‘B’ is irrelevant in this case as it relates to proposals seeking the change of use of an existing HMO. Part ‘A’ is applicable, however, since the proposal seeks the change of use of a home to an HMO within a particular part of Haringey covered by an Article 4 Direction.

[name] sets out that such changes of use to HMOs will be permitted where certain criteria are met. Criterion ‘b’ states that HMO proposals must not give rise to any significant adverse amenity impacts, including cumulative impacts arising from an over-concentration of HMOs within the area. Therefore, to conflict with DM17 A b), a proposal must result in an over-concentration of HMOs and, in turn, that must give rise to a significant adverse amenity impact.

Policy DM17’s supporting text provides assistance with its interpretation and application. The purposes of the Policy are multi-faceted. In part, it seeks to prevent some of the problems associated with HMOs such as poor living conditions and adverse effects on local character and amenity. It also seeks to ensure the availability of family housing stock but, at the same time, it recognises that HMO accommodation plays an important role in meeting particular housing needs.

The Policy does not define or elaborate on what is meant by ‘over-concentration’ nor does it explain how to define an appropriate area within which to assess the proportion of HMOs. Determining whether an over-concentration would arise from a proposal therefore boils down to a judgement call based on available evidence.

Various figures are before me in relation to the proportions of HMOs present in the site’s surroundings. The Council’s evidence includes that on [address], between its junctions with [address] and [address], 11 out of approximately 105 properties are licensed HMOs. This equates to approximately 10% of that area being in HMO use.

The Council also submit that, between [address] and [address], 3 of the 27 properties on the appeal site side of [address] have current HMO licenses. This amounts to an HMO proportion of around 11%.

There could be other, unverified, HMOs in the area. Indeed, the appellant’s Planning Statement2 actually suggests that the same stretch of [address] contains 10 HMOs rather than the aforementioned 3, but the source of this evidence is unclear. Given this, and since the Council’s submissions demonstrate relatively low proportions of HMOs in the area, the evidence before me as a whole indicates to me that there are not significant concentrations of HMOs in the area such that the proposal would result in an over-concentration of them.

Aside from HMOs, the Council refer to the number of flats in the area as well. However, part A of Policy DM17 is specifically concerned with HMOs, and the Policy guards against harmful effects associated with over-concentrations of them only, not regular flats.

Moreover, even if the proposal would result in an over-concentration of HMOs in the area, for conflict with Policy DM17 to arise because of this, the over-concentration must result in a significant adverse amenity impact on the surrounding area.

On this, I have had regard to the content of the housing stock condition and stressors report3 which provides a statistical analysis of [name]. This includes an analysis of the prevalence of certain housing-related stressors associated with HMOs. The site is within West Green Ward which I note experiences the highest level of complaints within Haringey from tenants and others in respect of licensed HMOs. However, West Green fares better in other respects - noise anti-social behaviour incidents being one of them. Moreover, and overall, the report does not demonstrate to me a causal link between the addition of this single HMO at this particular site and a likelihood for any significant adverse amenity impact to arise.

The evidence before me confirms that the existing property is lawfully 6 bedroomed, and the Council set out it could accommodate up to 9 people. The HMO would be occupied by 5 people. Given this, it is not at all clear that the proposal would result in an increase in the property’s occupancy, indeed, the reverse is quite likely. The occupancy level change would, alone, assist in mitigating the effects of the proposal in terms of noise and disturbance generation, whilst it would ensure that the proposal would not contribute to any over-crowding issues in the area.

A wide range of comings and goings would be expected from the existing use: trips to work, social visits, deliveries and potentially school runs would all be typical. The existing use would be expected to bring with it activities within the garden too. Although there may be some lifestyle differences associated with the occupants of an HMO, there is no compelling evidence before me which indicates to me that the type of occupancy proposed would result in a more intensive use of the site with any significant increases in comings and goings or, in turn, more noise or disturbance. Furthermore, to one side of the site there is a Dentist’s surgery rather 2 Planning Statement Revision O, by [name], dated November 2024 3 Houses in [name]: [name] and [name], by [address], dated August 2023 than a residential property, limiting the number of residential occupants in the site’s immediate surrounds which could be affected by the proposal.

For the above reasons, no significant adverse amenity impact on the surrounding area would result from the proposal.

The Council refer to Policy DM16 of the DMDPD, asserting that it has objective linkages with Policy DM17 in terms of adequately retaining family housing. The Council also refer to a London Plan (LP) Policy ‘7.15’ and Policy SP2 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies Document (the LPSPD). However, the full content of these Policies has not been supplied in evidence. As a result, I cannot conclude that they are even applicable to the specific development proposed. Neither can I deduce that there is any conflict with them. Moreover, the Council’s reasons for refusal reference none of these Policies.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable concentration of HMOs, including having regard to its amenity impacts on the area. As a result, the proposal complies with DMDPD Policy DM17 A b). In my first main issue, I have concluded that adequate provision would be made for refuse which meets part of Policy DM17’s part A ‘d’ criterion. None of the evidence before me gives me reason to conclude that the proposal conflicts with any remaining relevant criteria. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policy DM17 as a whole.

It also complies with DMDPD Policy DM1 which, amongst other matters, requires all development to contribute to the amenity of the local area and ensure a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers. The proposal also complies with the extracts of the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) which are before me, which include guidance to the effect that homes should remain a place of retreat and quiet enjoyment.

I am mindful that DMDPD Policy DM32, LP Policy T6 and Policy S7 of the LPSPD support car-free development where appropriate. The proposal would deliver no on-site parking, and the site is located within a [name] with resident permit holder-only restrictions in force.

Often, a mechanism, such as a Section 106 agreement, is required when it is deemed necessary to prohibit occupants from being eligible to apply for a parking permit. In this case, no such mechanism is before me. Despite this, firstly, the Council did not refuse the development on the grounds that a car-free development would not be secured. Secondly, I have no compelling evidence that, without a car-free development being secured, harmful parking conditions would arise or future occupants with cars seeking to obtain resident parking permits would be problematic.

For these reasons, for the proposal to be acceptable in planning terms, I have no firm basis on which to conclude that it needs securing as a car-free development via a suitable mechanism. Consequently, I raise no objection to the proposal on such grounds.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions that it considers would be appropriate. I have considered these in light of the tests for the imposition of conditions set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the content of the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). Having regard to the Framework and the PPG, and in the interests of clarity or precision, I have made some amendments to the Council’s suggestions.

Condition 1 sets out the standard time limitation. Condition 2 is necessary to ensure that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. The approved plans list is generally limited to the proposed plans since these depict the development to be carried out.

My first main issue provides the reasons why condition 3 is necessary. Although cycle parking/storage is depicted on the proposed block plan its precise design is unclear. Consequently, in its regard, I have imposed condition 4 in the interests of the promotion of sustainable transport and the character and appearance of the area. To ensure that the occupancy of the HMO is defined and controlled in the interests of the living conditions of local residents I have imposed condition 5.

The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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 the following plans: [name] 202479.P.1001 Existing and Proposed Block Plan 202479.P.1002 [name] 202479.P.1103 [name] 202479.P.1303 [name]

[address] in [name] hereby permitted shall not be occupied until refuse, recycling and waste storage has been carried out at the site in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include the quantum of the storage, its design and layout, including screening provision. The refuse, recycling and waste storage shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

[address] in [name] hereby permitted shall not be occupied until cycle parking/storage has been carried out at the site in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include the quantum of the parking/storage, its design and layout. The cycle parking/storage shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

[address] in [name] hereby permitted shall be occupied by no more than 5 people at any one time.