Appeal 6004362

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused for the conversion of commercial building (use Class E) to building in multiple occupation (sui generis).

This appeal relates to an application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission, had it made a decision on the proposal. I have had regard to the parties submissions in establishing the main issue, which I set out below.

The description of the proposal differs from the application form to that described by the Council. The above has been taken from the application form, which adequately describes the proposal.

The main issue is whether future occupiers would experience acceptable living conditions with regard to outlook and communal facilities.

The development would comprise 24 individual bedrooms. The appellant advises that the rooms would accommodate up to two people, and as such there would be between 24 and 48 people occupying the building over the three floors. Communal rooms with kitchens would be provided on each floor, as well as a shared office working space on the ground floor.

There is no policy requirement to meet the [name] (NDSS)1, and there are no specific space standards set out within Policy WD7 of the Wirral Local Plan2. Instead, the policy requires properties used as Houses in 1 Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard. 2 Wirral Local Plan, 2022-2040, Adopted 31 March 2025 [name] (HMOs) to be of sufficient size to provide safe, functional and healthy living conditions with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This includes requirements for reasonable outlook and amenity, and adequate separation distances amongst other things.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that developments should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, which promote health and wellbeing, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed individual rooms range between 13.[address] metres and 18.[address] metres in floor area, plus en-suite bathrooms. Taking account of the NDSS as general guidance, and the appellant’s quotation from “Guidance: Houses in multiple occupation and residential property licensing reform: guidance for local housing authorities, updated 9 October 2019”, all rooms exceed these indicators.

Personal items are more likely to be stored within the occupants’ bedrooms rather than in communal areas. Also, bedrooms would amount to the occupant’s sole private amenity space, and are likely to be used for sitting, sleeping and studying. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that the individual rooms would not be sufficient in size for their intended purpose.

The communal rooms would vary in size but would total [address] metres across the three floors of the building. Of this, [address] metres would be used for breakout, kitchen and lounge space. With up to 48 persons occupying the building, the Council states that this amounts to 2.[address] metres per person. There is nothing before me to dispute this figure. Even if not all of the rooms are occupied by two people such that more floor space is available, I consider the extent of internal communal space to be inadequate to meet the needs of those residents, to cook, relax, pursue leisure activities, and socialise.

Outdoor amenity space would be provided within the development, and public outdoor space is available a short distance away, or accessible via public transport. There are also restaurants, and cafés nearby. Even so, this does not compensate for the inadequacy of the communal space within the building required for day to day living. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me that young professionals would need any less space than other types of occupant, due to the potential length of their stay in the accommodation.

Two proposed bedrooms, one on the first, and one on the second floor, would have their only windows facing into a narrow, north facing void, and in close proximity to windows serving communal spaces, on the opposite side of the void. The bedroom windows are large but are likely to experience diminished light levels due to their position within the void. Moreover, there is a likelihood that the windows would be obscured by blinds or curtains due to the proximity of the windows of the opposite windows, even if those windows are obscurely glazed. The poor quality of outlook within these rooms, in which the occupiers would spend much of their time, is such that the occupiers living conditions would be harmed.

The nine proposed ground floor bedrooms would be set back a short distance from the pavement behind a grass verge, such that passers-by would be able to look across into these rooms. The occupants would require the use of blinds, curtains or obscure glazed windows in order to maintain effective privacy, thus resulting in a poor quality of outlook and potentially reduced levels of daylight for the occupants. Whilst landscaping within the verge will grow over time, and reduce the extent of overlooking, this would grow in close proximity to the proposed windows such that outlook would be adversely affected.

It is the sum of all of the above factors that lead me to conclude that the development would not provide a high standard of amenity for future occupiers and would not amount to functional and healthy living conditions. As such it would significantly harm the living conditions of future occupiers.

The Council is concerned that the ground floor breakout / kitchen / lounge would have a poor quality of outlook over the bike and bin store. However, I observed during my site visit that there was sufficient space within the rear yard to ensure that the stores are set away from the windows, for example, in fixed enclosures set to one side. I also consider that this arrangement could be secured by imposing a planning condition, such that the outlook could be made acceptable.

The proposed office working space would be too small to accommodate between 24 and 48 people working at desks, and their activities would be visible to passers-by. However, it is likely that only a small number of occupants would need the available space, due to employment opportunities nearby. Moreover, the nature of the activity undertaken in an office environment, would be such that a much lower level of privacy would be expected. Thus the intended working space would not harm the living conditions of future occupiers and would meet their needs for an office space.

Nevertheless, the development would result in future occupiers experiencing significantly harmful living conditions with regard to outlook and provision of communal space. As such the development conflicts with Policy WD7 of the Wirral Local Plan, and the Framework.

The site is within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). The relevant part of the CA is significant for its municipal building heritage, with consistent building heights and mixed uses. There is a range of architectural styles from the Victorian and Edwardian era, through to the interwar period which includes the appeal building. It was recently included on the Wirral Local List, is a non-designated heritage asset, and is the sole surviving element of a larger building. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.

Externally, the proposal incorporates replacement windows and new windows in an arrangement and design that is broadly sympathetic to the host building and would include an active frontage. On this basis, the development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not harm its significance. It would also amount to the sensitive external alteration of the NDHA. I note the Council’s similar stance in this regard.

[address] is a grade II listed building (LB) in the vicinity. In determining this appeal, the statutory test in relation to this listed building is that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving its setting.

The LB is circa 1850 and is significant for its continued use as a parade of shops and its architectural style and proportions. The appeal site lies on the opposite side of [address] with significant separation between the two buildings. Whilst it is within the wider setting of the LB, it does not contribute strongly to its significance, other than the harmony of building heights within the wider street scene. As no other connection between it and the appeal site relating to its significance is apparent, or has been brought to my attention, no harm would occur to its significance by development within this part of its setting.

The appellant asserts that the Council failed to engage during the timeframe of the application process, and also that the planning application sought to address reasons for refusal on a previous decision (APP/25/00539). However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

An additional security door is proposed within the ground floor corridor separating the bedrooms from the shared kitchen facility, as well as CCTV. This weighs neither for nor against allowing the appeal.

I am mindful that the proposal would deliver economic and social benefits through the conversion works and spend in the local area. Additional social benefits would also arise as level access to the ground floor rooms could be made available for occupants with impaired mobility.

The internal area of the building is in a poor state of repair and there are ongoing issues with unauthorised access, and I am told, illegal activity within the building. The re-use of the building would ensure the long-term maintenance of a heritage asset within a CA. However, the weight attributed to these factors is tempered. It has not been demonstrated that no alternative internal configurations are available, which would be less harmful to future occupants, nor is there sufficient evidence to show that the building could not be appropriately secured, to prevent unauthorised access and illegal activity.

The policies of the Local Plan, and the Framework seek to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In this case I have found that future occupiers would experience significant harm to their living conditions. The harm associated with the proposal outweighs those factors that weigh in its favour.

In this case I consider there would be conflict with the development plan overall. There are no other material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.