Appeal 6003964

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft conversion to existing large-scale HMO ([name]) including the erection of L-shaped rear dormer and installation of front rooflights to increase the maximum number of residents from 7 to 8 persons. Removal of existing windows and door and installation of a new window and door on the rear elevation at [site address] , Tottenham, Haringey, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0847, subject to the following conditions:

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: Location Plan dated 27 March 2025 REAL-2022-082/03-002 REAL-2022-082/03-103 REAL-2022-082/03-104 REAL-2022-082/03-105 REAL-2022-082/03-106 REAL-2022-082/03-203 REAL-2022-082/03-303 REAL-2022-082/03-411

The property shall not be occupied as the 8-person HMO hereby permitted until refuse, waste and recycling storage has been provided to serve it in accordance with details that have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The refuse, waste and recycling storage shall be retained thereafter.

The property shall not be occupied as the 8-person HMO hereby permitted until cycle storage has been provided to serve it in accordance with the details shown on drawings REAL-2022-082/03-103, REAL-2022- 082/03-105, REAL-2022-082/03-106, REAL-2022-082/03-203, REAL- 2022-082/03-303 and REAL-2022-082/03-411. The cycle storage shall be retained thereafter.

During my site visit I noted that the property’s layout did not wholly match the submitted plans – notably, the kitchen area on site was separated in two by a wall and doorway which is not depicted on either the existing or proposed plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted.

The main issue is whether the development would provide acceptable kitchen and dining accommodation for site occupants.

The proposed plans show that, upon completion of the development, the property would be served by a ground floor kitchen and, beside it, a living/dining room which is depicted to contain both banquette seating and a dining table with chairs. Two letting rooms would be at ground floor level with the other five being at first and second floor levels.

[name] for Houses and [name] document (the HMO standards) sets out a series of detailed design standards HMOs are expected to meet, including in respect of kitchen facilities. Paragraph 3.5 of the HMO standards states “No unit of accommodation shall be more than one floor distant from a kitchen, whether for exclusive or shared use. However, this condition may be waived where a suitable, adequately-sized dining room or dining area is provided for the occupiers of such lettings either on the same floor as, or no more than one floor distant, from a kitchen. The maximum sharing ratio of three lettings per set of kitchen facilities still applies.”

Therefore, in order to comply with this particular element of the HMO standards, either: • no letting room within an HMO must be more than one floor distant from a kitchen; or • an adequately-sized dining area must be provided on the same floor as, or no more than one floor distant from, a kitchen.

The proposed dining area would be on the same floor as the kitchen and, conveniently, it would be positioned next to it. The HMO standards do not detail any specific dimensions that dining areas should be, however, the room the dining area is proposed within is shown to be 12.5m2 and it would contain a range of seating options. Therefore, it would be of adequate size, and the paragraph 3.5 requirements of the HMO standards would be met.

Furthermore, the main appeal party submissions give me no reason to conclude that the kitchen and dining accommodation proposed would fail to comply with the HMO standards, or be deficient, for any other reason either. Consequently, I conclude that the development would provide acceptable kitchen and dining accommodation for site occupants.

The development therefore complies with Policy DM17 of Haringey’s Development Management Development Plan Document (the DMDPD) which, in summary and amongst other matters, requires HMOs to provide high quality accommodation, including in respect to their internal space.

Although the Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policy D6 of the DMDPD, no such policy exists, and it seems that the asserted conflict relates to Policy D6 of the London Plan (the LP). Given my findings, the development also complies with LP Policy D6’s requirements for developments to be of a high quality of design which provide comfortable, functional and fit for purpose layouts. Policy D6’s minimum space standards apply only to self-contained residential accommodation and, since the development would incorporate some shared facilities, are not applicable in this case.

The development would result in the property’s occupancy increasing by only a single person. The dormer extension and other physical alterations proposed would, overall, represent quite modest alterations to the property. Given these factors, I find the development’s effects on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, including in respect of the potential for noise and light generation, to be acceptable. The property’s additional waste generation could be acceptably resolved via the imposition of a condition.

The proposal would deliver no on-site parking, and the site is located within a [name] with resident permit holder-only restrictions in force. I am mindful of the response of the Highway Authority which makes a reference to securing the development as a car-free development.

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, and with the modest increase in the property’s occupancy in mind, 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 not provided a dedicated list of suggested conditions that it considers would be appropriate. However, the [name] refers to certain matters which the Council considers would be required to be controlled through the imposition of conditions. The Highway Authority has also made suggestions. These suggestions have informed my suite of conditions, whilst I have had particular regard to the tests for the imposition of conditions set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the guidance of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in respect of the use of conditions.

Condition 1 sets out the necessary standard time limitation. Condition 2 is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. These plans provide adequate detail regarding the external materials proposed as part of the development’s external alterations.

Policy DM4 of the DMDPD requires all development proposals to make appropriate provision for waste, and the Policy’s supporting text pays particular attention to flatted accommodation. The submitted plans depict the provision of four bins within the front yard, but I am mindful that the appellant’s planning statement also refers to the provision of two additional waste boxes. Overall, it is not clear that the waste provision depicted on the submitted plans would be adequate. To ensure that it would be, I have imposed condition 3.

To promote sustainable transport and ensure that the property’s occupiers are served by necessary infrastructure I have imposed condition 4 which secures the delivery of the cycle storage depicted on the plans.

I have noted the recommendation of the Highway Authority that a condition be applied regarding a construction management statement. However, the scale of the physical alterations to the property is quite modest. I have no substantive evidence before me which indicates to me that the construction phase of the development would be complex, prolonged or be likely to cause any considerable effects in highways-related terms or, indeed, more generally. Therefore, I find a condition requiring the submission of, and adherence to, a construction management statement to be unnecessary, and I have not imposed one.

The development accords with the development plan taken 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 above.