Appeal 6004513

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the proposed development’s effect on: • the provision of family housing within the area; and, • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, particularly with reference to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site currently comprises a 5-bedroom dwelling, and the proposal is for a change of use to a 6-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO). Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (the DPD) 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 Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document 2022 (the SPD) requires proposals demonstrate that there is a lack of demand for the property’s use as family housing through marketing evidence.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 (SHMA) shows the calculated housing need for Birmingham between 2011 to 2031. The Birmingham Development Plan Authority [name] 2023-2024 and the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2022 (HEDNA) indicate the need identified from the SHMA has not been met, and that there is a city-wide undersupply of 4+ bedroom dwellings. The HEDNA also highlights the high number of households with dependent children within the city, further demonstrating the need for family size housing in general. Although these documents are not site specific, they do provide evidence of why the retention of family homes is important in the wider area to provide sufficient choice of housing.

The evidence of demand provided by the appellant is anecdotal and therefore there is no compelling evidence of a lack of demand in the use of the property for family housing. I appreciate through the change of use to a HMO the property would provide residential accommodation in other respects; however, the benefits of such provision would not outweigh the harm arising from the loss of family housing in an area of established shortfall. Whilst the development would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework’s aims to boost the supply of homes and to make the effective use of land in sustainable locations, this should not be at the expense of meeting identified housing need.

I conclude the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the provision of family housing in the area. This would be in conflict with the aims of Policies PG3, TP27 and TP30 all of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which requires amongst other things, that proposals make best use of the existing buildings, and ensure there is a wide choice of housing mix to ensure balanced communities. The proposal would also be in conflict with Policy DM11 of the DPD, which requires development to not result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to other Council objectives.

The appeal site is a mid-terraced dwelling located in a relatively dense urban area, comprising predominantly of residential properties but with several commercial properties in the locality. The appeal site’s front door is immediately adjacent to that of the neighbouring house [address]. [name] carried out my site visit the area was relatively quiet, with occasional passing traffic meaning noise from the road was not significant. Although this was just a snapshot in time, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest it is different at any particular time.

Notwithstanding that the site is within an urban environment where a certain level of background noise is to be expected, the proposal would give rise to a level of general noise and disturbance that would be materially harmful to the neighbouring properties, particularly the adjoined terraced properties on either side due to their proximity. The intensification of the use of the property would beyond that if an extended family were to live within it. This is because 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 the 6 separate households that could occupy the proposal 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.

The proposal would provide outdoor amenity space in excess of the recommended amount given with the SPD, however this would not necessarily impact the number of comings and goings from the property, as such I do not find this would sufficiently mitigate the harm identified.

The appellant suggests that matters of noise and disturbance could be controlled by condition. Whilst reference is made to such an approach in other appeal decisions I have not been provided with the details of these conditions to give substantial credence to them. In light of the harm identified above, it has not been satisfactorily evidenced that such conditions could sufficiently mitigate the harm identified in this instance.

In conclusion, the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties through the increase in noise and disturbance. This would be in conflict with Policy DM2 and DM11 of the DPD, which seek among other things to protect the living conditions of neighbouring properties, including in relation to HMOs.

The proposal would have an acceptable level of cycle storage to encourage sustainable modes of travel, and the bedrooms would all be in excess of the [name]. However, these are neutral factors in the determination of the appeal, as is the lack of harm identified in relation to character and appearance, and the living conditions of future occupiers.

The proposal would result in the increase in number of households that could occupy the appeal property, which is well located in relation to services and facilities, including public transport. Furthermore, there would be economic benefits during construction and from the future spend of occupiers. However, these factors would not be sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan regarding the unacceptable harm to neighbours living conditions and the provision of family housing in the area.

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