Appeal 6004176

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property was in use as a 6-bedroom House in [name] at the time of my visit and its layout reflected the plans before me. For clarity, I have dealt with the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issue is whether the development provides acceptable living conditions for the occupants, with particular regard to internal space standards.

The appeal proposal includes two bedrooms at second floor level which are in the loft space. Although the space standards in Policy H9 of the Council’s Core Strategy ([name]) do not apply to proposals for new Houses in [name] (HMO’s), the supporting text to this policy does set out that adequate levels of amenity in terms of space for the residents of HMO’s should be provided. In this regard, the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (NDSS) provide standards against which the appeal development should be considered. It is common ground that the bedrooms in the attic, due to the sloping roof, fail to provide sufficient floor space with adequate floor to ceiling height.

The appellant has set out, with reference to an existing permission1 for a 7- bedroom House in [name] (HMO), that this appeal development has resulted in a lower level of occupation and a less intensive use of the property. However, despite the overall reduction in the number of bedrooms, and unlike the previous approval which comprised of a single bedsit unit across the two rooms at loft level, the second floor in this appeal development has two separate bedrooms. 1 Ref: APP/N4720/A/09/2093559 As such, I do not find that relative to the previously permitted scheme, that the appeal development secures a better standard of accommodation, even though the appeal scheme provides separate kitchen and living spaces. Rather, it has resulted in an increase in occupation at the attic level where the floor to ceiling height is restricted.

The provision of communal kitchen and living space results in occupants cooking and undertaking some activities away from the bedrooms. However, I was able to see at the time of my visit that a number of the bedrooms contained TV’s, desks and other items that indicated they were being used for living space as well as for sleeping. As such, due to the inadequate floor area and restricted height, the attic rooms do not provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

I therefore conclude that the development fails to provide acceptable living conditions for its occupants with particular regard to internal space standards, and as such, it is contrary to [name] H6 and P10, Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the NDSS, which seek, amongst other matters, a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Reference has been made to the emerging HMO, PBSA and Co-living Standards Supplementary Planning Document, but given this is in draft form, I afford this document limited weight.

The appeal property has a [name] for occupation by up to 6 people. The standards for HMO licences serve a different purpose to planning, namely to ensure accommodation meets a minimum standard for human habitation whereas planning seeks residential accommodation to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. As such, given the differences between the licensing and planning regimes, the granting of a HMO licence does not equate to the appeal development being acceptable in planning terms.

The previous appeal decision1 on this site did not reference the layout or size of the bedrooms, but it predated the Framework, the NDSS, as well as the [name]. Given this changed policy context, it is of limited relevance to the appeal proposal before me.

I have considered the other matters raised, including the application subject of this appeal having been made voluntarily and reference to permitted development rights from Class C3 to C4, which could have been used had the previous permission not been implemented. These matters do not however outweigh my conclusion in relation to the main issue.

A neighbouring property at 2 Arthington Grove2 was granted permission for a change of use to a 6-person house in multiple occupation. From the information before me, the bedrooms at second floor level at the neighbouring property are larger than those in this appeal before me. The circumstances of the neighbouring development were therefore materially different to this appeal scheme. 2 [name]: 25/05629/FU

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.