Appeal 6004031

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant. This is the subject of a separate decision.

These are whether the proposal would provide: a) suitable living conditions for the future occupiers, b) affordable rent levels and car free developments, having regard to the

The site is on the north side of [address], between [address] and [address]. It contains a 2 storey Victorian terraced house, originally built with a butterfly roof and recently altered to a mansard roof, with a 2 storey rear outrigger. The surrounding area consists mainly of residential properties with there being nearby local shops and services.

The proposal is to subdivide the property and change its use from an existing 6-bed House in [name] (HMO) to a 7-bed HMO. This involves splitting the ground floor communal area to create an additional bedroom. The proposal also includes new refuse storage in the front garden.

The proposed change at ground floor results in the communal area being made much smaller (from around [address] meters (sqm) to approximately 18 sqm), removing the living area element, leaving only a kitchen / dining area and kitchen on the second floor, which has reduced ceiling heights. The resultant communal space would be seriously compromised, leaving no space for relaxing in a living area. Each bedroom is for single occupancy and there is very little space within the rooms to provide a seating area. Whilst there would be a dining area, this would be the only space where occupants could congregate and socialise, and the plans before me indicate a 6 seater dining table. This would be inadequate for the prospective occupants, and providing such a limited amount of communal space for 7 people would fail to provide a good standard of accommodation and amenity space.

Moreover, the new bedroom created (bedroom 3) would be served by one window which faces into an internal small lightwell. It would also face the window of another bedroom (bedroom 2). There is about 2 metres between windows, and whilst they are slightly offset in terms of positioning, the location of the windows would enable direct overlooking between these rooms. A separation distance of 2 metres between bedroom windows would be woefully inadequate, and would lead to there being very little privacy for each occupant. Furthermore, the outlook into a small internal courtyard would be gloomy and oppressive, and although this is already the case for one bedroom, facilitating an additional bedroom to be served by this would be unacceptable. The situation would be exacerbated by the failure to provide any communal living areas, such that occupants would be heavily reliant on their bedrooms for relaxing.

Levels of natural daylight and sunlight for the new bedroom are also likely to be restricted, given the height of the surrounding walls, especially the original 3 storey rear wall of the house.

Therefore, the proposal would fail to provide suitable living conditions for the future occupiers, conflicting with Policies LP2 and LP22 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (July 2020), which seek to ensure that HMOs are well designed and of good quality, providing a good standard of accommodation and designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers.

Policy LP22 of the HLP requires that HMOs will be supported if they can demonstrate that proposed rent levels would be suitable for people with low incomes. Car free developments are required by Policy LP45 of the HLP and Policy T6 of the London Plan (March 2021).

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was submitted with the appeal, which intends to provide for the additional bedroom to be let at affordable rent levels; and to ensure that the future occupier of the additional bedroom could not obtain a resident’s parking permit. This would, in theory, enable compliance with the above policies. This is necessary to ensure that the proposal would secure appropriate rent levels and would not lead to an unacceptable increase in parking stress in the area.

The agreement is dated 28 April 2025 and is signed by the appellant, and thus it is complete. It was submitted with the planning application but does not appear to have been reviewed by the Council’s legal team.

Nevertheless, the UU before me would not be effective. There is no plan attached to the agreement, nor any title documents. The UU also fails to bind successors in title, and I have concerns about the operation of Clause 3.4 regarding the successor in title to a tenant occupying the 7th room. The supporting text to Policy LP22 clearly details that proposed shared housing development will be subject to a planning agreement to ensure rents for rooms remain affordable for low-income occupiers in the long-term.

Therefore, given the ineffectiveness of the UU, I am not satisfied that the obligations could be properly achieved. This would result in the development failing to secure appropriate rent levels and lead to increased parking stress in the area. The proposal would fail to meet Policies LP22 and LP45 of the HLP, and Policy T6 of the LP.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.