Appeal 6004521

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue of the appeal is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular reference to shared internal living space and the pedestrian access to the building.

The appeal site comprises a 3-storey terraced property situated in a commercial centre. The proposal is for the first and second floors of the building to change use to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 5 bedrooms and a kitchen.

Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (the LP) requires HMOs to provide high quality accommodation and adequate living space, including “communal living space comprising lounge, kitchen and dining space either as distinct rooms or in an open plan format”. The proposal only includes a kitchen and no provision for a shared lounge or dining space.

Though the proposed bedrooms are in excess of the minimum requirements of Policy DM11 of the LP, the bedrooms would be the occupants only private living space so residents may not want to invite other people into them. The lack of a shared lounge or dining room would reduce social cohesion and increase the isolation of the occupants resulting in harm to their living conditions. This would be in conflict with [name] 15 of the [name]: [name] 2022, which requires homes support residents mental and physical quality of life, including through providing sufficient indoor space.

Though there is shared external amenity space, it would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm created by the lack of shared amenity space within the property, particularly given that it would not be conducive to use during times of inclement weather or at night in the winter.

The proposed HMO would be accessed from an alleyway running from the front of the property to the rear external amenity space, where the access door would lead to a stairwell.

The length of the alleyway is visible from the street, and the external amenity space is overlooked by several of the proposed HMO’s bedrooms. The alleyway does not provide access beyond the external amenity space. The access gate can be locked and therefore secured, and the appellant has indicated lighting and CCTV on the proposed plans. The consultation with [name] has not raised any particular concerns in relation to the pedestrian access other than suggesting conditions related to the above. As such I do not find the pedestrian access would result in harm to the living conditions for potential future occupants, however the determinative issue of the appeal is the provision of shared internal living space.

I conclude, that due to the lack of shared internal living space the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. The proposed development would therefore be in conflict with Policy DM11 of the LP.

It has been highlighted by the appellant that the proposed plans have addressed comments given by the Council during pre-application advice. The Council’s submissions indicate that the pre-application scheme comprised alternative plans that included additional internal communal space. In any event my role is to objectively determine the proposed plans as they are in the appeal before me.

The proposal would result in the creation of residential accommodation on a site 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 standard of living conditions for future occupiers. In addition, a lack of harm identified in relation to character and appearance, and the living conditions of existing neighbours is also a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal.

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