Appeal 6004063

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the description of the development in the banner heading as provided on the decision notice, appeal form and within the appellants submissions, as it more clearly describes the development than that indicated on the application form. The address is as provided on the application form.

After the final comments stage clarification was sought from the Council in relation to where a figure was taken in their appeal submissions from within the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2022 (HEDNA). In their response, outside the scope of what was requested, new evidence was provided. In consideration of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England: For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026, the new evidence has not been taken into account in this appeal. Representations received from the appellant following the final comments stage have also not been taken into account on the same basis.

The main issues of the appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the provision of family housing in the area; and, • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring properties on [address], with particular reference to noise and disturbance; and, • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to external amenity space; and, • the effect of the proposed parking provision on highway safety on [address].

The appeal site comprises a three-storey detached house, described as having 6 bedrooms. The proposal is for a change of use to a 9-bedroom house in multiple occupancy (HMO).

It is not contested by the Council that the appeal site would meet the criteria in relation to density of HMO’s taken from Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (the LP2). Policy DM11 of the LP2 also requires development for HMO’s to “not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to other Council objectives, strategies and policies”.

The Council in opposition of the appeal have submitted the HEDNA. This highlights the city-wide undersupply of 4+ bedroom houses since 2011/12, whilst also demonstrating there has been a considerable supply of smaller accommodation. The appeal site is located within [site address] , which forms part of the Yardley sub area within the HEDNA. Yardley is shown as having a comparatively low proportion of 4+ bedroom housing to other areas within the city. The HEDNA indicates a city-wide need for 4+ bedroom dwellings of all tenures. Although the HEDNA is not site specific, it does provide evidence of why the retention of family size homes is important in the wider area.

In contrast the appellant has provided anecdotal evidence in support of the demand for HMOs and the unsuitability of the property as a family dwelling but has provided no other supporting evidence. [name] appreciate the arguments raised by the appellant, I must be led by the evidence, which indicate there is demonstrable need for family housing in the area, which the property comprises of. Though the change of use to a HMO the property will contribute to providing residential accommodation in other respects, the evidence demonstrates the loss of a family dwelling would comprise the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to the Councils other objectives.

I conclude the development would have a harmful effect on the provision of family housing in the area. It would therefore be in conflict with Policy DM11 of the LP2. The proposal would also be in conflict with Policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (the LP), which seeks to protect the Council’s existing housing stock.

In relation to compliance with Policy DM11 of the LP2 and Policy TP35 of the LP, the appellant has highlighted the principle of a flexible approach to decision making from the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, this does not mean it is acceptable to provide an insufficient level of evidence to demonstrate the effects of the proposal are acceptable.

The proposal seeks to change the use of the property to a 9-bedroom HMO. I observed during my site visit that the residential area the appeal site is located within is reasonably quiet. Although this was just a snapshot in time there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest it is different at any particular time. Therefore, there is the potential for the quality of the environment and the residential character of the area to be harmed by a more intensive use of the site.

Representations received from other interested parties suggest that the property already operates to some extent as an HMO, though the appellant’s and the Council’s submissions have not corroborated this. The Council’s submission does not include details from environmental health or complaint records; however, a number of the representations received include concerns in relation to noise and disturbance from the alleged use of the property as a HMO.

The appellant has forwarded an argument that the operation of the HMO would not be dissimilar to that of an extended family living in the property. However, even a large family would typically share some form of routine and daily activities associated with family life, even if they had different working patterns. In contrast 9 separate households occupying the property would largely operate entirely different lives, including visitors, deliveries and alike creating a significantly greater number of comings and goings in comparison to a single household. Therefore, I am satisfied there would be a materially harmful increase in noise and disturbance as a result of the appeal scheme, deriving from the comings and goings outside of the building and increased vehicular and pedestrian movements.

The appellant has stated that the property as a HMO would be subject to separate licensing and management controls and has suggested conditions could be used to control the management of the property. I have though not been provided with the details of these including how they would mitigate the harm identified.

I conclude the development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties on [address], regarding noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policy DM2 and DM11 both of the LP2, which seek to protect neighbours living conditions, including in relation to HMOs.

It is not disputed by the parties that the proposed HMO could be occupied by 15 people, and the proposal provides below the recommended external amenity space as advised by the [name]: [name] and Working Places City Manual 2022 (the SPD), which is a material consideration in determination of the appeal. I appreciate the calculation taken from the SPD is on the basis of the property being fully occupied with some rooms being occupied by two individuals, nonetheless the property could reasonably be occupied in this manner.

The site is located within an area where a range of services and facilities are available, including public parks. External private amenity space is though utilised in a different fashion to these, especially in relation to social activities where public parks can have restrictions and do not provide a level of privacy.

The provision of an appropriate level of external amenity space for HMOs promotes social cohesion and provides a level of privacy to the occupants to enjoy the outdoors, therefore a reduction in these standards would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, particularly given the potential number of occupants and the restricted level of private space.

The appellant in support of the proposal has highlighted principles of the Framework in relation to making efficient use of land, however this does not mean that the efficient use of land should be at the expense of providing acceptable living conditions.

I conclude the proposal would not provide sufficient external amenity space and would result in unacceptable standard of living conditions for future occupants. This would be in conflict with Policy DM2 and DM11 both of the LP2, which seek to protect the living conditions of occupiers, including of HMOs. In this regard the proposal would also be contrary to Policy PG3 of the LP, which seeks that development is of a high design quality.

The proposed plans show the outline of four cars to the front of the property; however, there are no details of the size of these spaces or how they can be accessed, including in relation to the boundary wall and footpath.

The proposal will allow up to 9 separate households to occupy the property, who would come and go with different routines throughout the day and night. Considering the existing dropped kerb and access through the wall, it would not be feasible that 4 parking spaces suggested by the appellant could be provided without blocking in other vehicles, which would not be compatible with the number of different households occupying the property, making it difficult to manage the parking.

The appellant has argued that due to the property’s location and the nature of HMOs use that a reduced parking allowance should be permitted. These matters are though taken into consideration within the parking allocation guidance outlined in the Birmingham Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2021 with only 0.5 spaces required per bedroom.

Given that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the required parking can be provided on site, the parking requirement of the property would be displaced onto on-street parking. I appreciate it is only a snapshot in time; however, it was evident from my site visit there is already a demand for on street parking on [address], with cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces around parked cars. [address] is a relatively narrow street with on-street parking on either side, as such the absence of on-site spaces would lead to additional obstructive parking restricting the space for vehicles to pass through, creating safety concerns for highways users and pedestrians. Furthermore, the likelihood of occupants potentially parking close in proximity to the junction with [address] where the appeal site is located, would exacerbate safety concerns for pedestrians and highways users.

The appellant has forwarded an argument that no objection has been received from the Council’s consultee, yet the consultee requested additional information as part of the application process that does not appear to have been provided by the appellant and is not before me now at appeal. The information requested included precisely how the proposed parking spaces will be accessed. The appellant has stated that the Council has not provided parking surveys, accident data and highway modelling to demonstrate harm, however the appellant in turn has not provided any technical evidence to demonstrate the effects of the proposal would be acceptable.

It has not been demonstrated that the parking allocation would meet the needs of the proposal, and therefore, I find the increase in demand on street parking would result in adverse effects on highway and pedestrian safety.

The appellant has argued that the Framework promotes reduced car dependency. This does not though provide reasoning for providing development with insufficient parking allocations that would result in adverse effects on highway safety.

I conclude the proposal would cause harm to highway safety on [address] through the lack of parking provision. This would be in conflict with Policy DM14 and Policy DM15 both of the LP2, which require proposals demonstrate that their parking provision would meet the operational needs of the development and would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety. The proposal would also be in conflict with Policy PG3 of the LP as its parking provision would not represent a high standard of design quality.

The appellant has raised an argument that representations in relation to alleged criminal activities of current occupants of the appeal site, and the perceived anti-social future behaviour of future occupants, are not material planning considerations. Whilst the fear of crime can be capable of being a material consideration, it is not substantiated with sufficient evidence in this instance, and I note that the [name] have not objected through the consultation process. As such these matters have not been determinative within the appeal.

There would be benefits of the proposal associated with the contribution to supply of a particular type of residential accommodation together with economic benefits through construction and the future spend of occupants in the local area.

However, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no raised material considerations that outweigh that conflict. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.