Appeal 6004140

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from self-contained flat (Use Class C3) to 3-bed HMO (Use Class C4) at [site address] , [site address] , Olton, Birmingham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/03368/PA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal scheme was altered during the consideration of the application which had the effect of changing the number of bedrooms. I have therefore used the description of development given on the appeal form which is consistent with the decision notice as it more accurately reflects the revised scheme.

The application form explains that the use of the appeal site as a House in [name] (HMO) commenced prior to the submission of the application. It is not clear whether the on-going use is in accordance with the revised plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the information upon which the Council made their decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the existing dwelling stock in Birmingham.

Policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan ([name] 2017) (BDP) seeks to ensure that the best use is made of the existing dwelling stock in the City by, amongst other things, preventing the loss to other uses (through conversion or redevelopment) of housing which is in good condition.

Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document ([name] 2021) (DPD) relates to the conversion of existing dwellinghouses to HMOs. The Policy sets out several criteria (a-f) which need to be met in order for the proposal to be permitted. The Council contends that the proposal would conflict with criterion 1d) which seeks to ensure that proposals do not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to other Council objectives, in that it would result in the loss of a single-family dwelling.

The Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2022) (SPD) explains that the Council’s Housing Needs Assessment indicates that there is a need for accommodation of all sizes but a higher demand for 2 and 3 bed dwellings. It states that for proposals comprising the conversion of an existing dwellinghouse to an HMO it should be demonstrated that there is a lack of demand for the single family use of the property.

Prior to its conversion to an HMO, the appeal property comprised a self-contained flat. A self contained flat is defined within Policy DM11 as a non-family residential use. This is reiterated in the SPD. Consequently, the change of use of the property has not resulted in the loss of a home suitable for a family. As such the proposal would not conflict with the aims of this policy to preserve the stock of homes suitable for families in the area. In such circumstances it is not necessary for a lack of demand to be demonstrated through a marketing exercise.

I recognise that the proposal would result in the loss of a 2-bedroom dwelling, for which the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment (April 2022) has identified a general demand in the city, however I have not been directed to a policy which specifically seeks to resist the loss of such accommodation.

I therefore conclude that the proposal accords with Policy TP35 of the BDP and Policy DM11 of the DPD.

I recognise that the proposal has attracted a significant number of objections which raise matters which were not areas of concern for the Council. The appeal site is in a location which is well served by public transport and as such occupiers of the HMO would not be reliant on a private car to access services and facilities. Therefore, the lack of parking would not result in an adverse impact upon the availability of parking and highway safety.

The Council have provided evidence that the proposal would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs in the area and I have been provided with no substantive evidence to the contrary. A 3 bedroom HMO would not be intensively occupied and is in a busy mixed-use area. In this context, the comings and goings of occupiers and noise associated with the HMO is unlikely to be at a level which would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties.

There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the occupiers of the HMO would be likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. The effect on property values or the fact that the application was submitted retrospectively are not matters which are material to my decision.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have undertaken some minor editing in the interest of clarity. It is not clear whether the on-going use of the HMO accords with the revised drawings and as such a condition relating to the commencement of development is necessary. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity. A condition specifying the level of occupancy as proposed by the appellant is necessary to ensure that appropriate living conditions are provided for occupiers and the occupiers of nearby properties.

The proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

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 drawing nos 100 and 200 rev A.

Each of the bedrooms hereby approved shall be occupied by no more than one person.