Appeal 6004566

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against Slough Borough Council. This application will be the subject of a separate

In the interest of clarity and accuracy, I have utilised the site address and description of development as provided on the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, and those of existing occupiers nearby; (iii) whether the development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy; and (iv) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Policies T2 and H20 of the Slough Local Plan, 2004 (the LP), set out that new development, including Houses in [name] (HMO’s), should provide a sufficient number of parking spaces, including by taking account of the location of the site and the potential for highway safety issues.

The Council has set out that, in this instance, one parking space per room should be provided. They state that this would be in line with guidance set out in the Transport and Highway Guidance, [name] 3 (November 2008) which relates to one bedroomed flats. I acknowledge that flatted developments are slightly different to HMOs, and that car ownership levels can often be lower with the latter. However, this is perhaps partly on the basis that HMO’s might usually be expected to be located closer to the town centre.

In this instance, the site is located on the northern side of Slough, some distance from the town centre. While there are bus stops nearby that could be utilised, I still find it highly likely that the occupiers of the HMO would have higher levels of car ownership in this location than is often otherwise the case. On that basis, I am not satisfied that the nine off-street spaces shown on the plans would be sufficient to cater for the needs of fifteen occupiers.

I did note during my site visit that it could be possible to fit additional vehicles on the driveways of the three properties. However, doing so would involve blocking other vehicles in, which would likely result in the need to undertake complicated and dangerous manoeuvres when entering or exiting. It is quite possible that such manoeuvres would endanger the safety of passing pedestrians, and indeed I am very mindful of the fact that the appeal site is adjacent to a primary school. Any additional on-street parking on a busy road such as this also has the potential to lead to separate highway safety issues, such as the blocking of driveways or parking on pavements.

I note the Council’s other concerns in relation to the access, including the dropped kerb and existing lamp post. However, it appears from the plans that the existing dwellings already have permission for nine spaces and so I do not find harm with regards to their use which would merely represent a continuation of the current situation. Instead, my concerns relate solely to the potential increased use of the driveways, as well as the possibility of additional on-street parking.

On that basis, the lack of off-street parking proposed, and the inherent dangers associated with squeezing more vehicles onto the driveway areas or additional on-street parking, means that I must conclude that the proposed change of use could lead to highway safety concerns. The proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant aspects of [name] T2 and H20 which seek to ensure that a sufficient number of parking spaces are provided, including for HMO’s, and that any road safety problems are sufficiently addressed.

Bedroom two within No. 526A would have a window that looks out at the nearby boundary wall. The room itself would meet the minimum requirements set out within the [name] (NDSS). However, it would still be a relatively small space, and in combination with the lack of outlook from the window, it is likely that the room would feel oppressive and enclosed.

Moreover, the dining spaces associated with No’s [site address] would not benefit from any external windows. As such, the lack of daylight, outlook and natural ventilation would inevitably ensure that these communal spaces, which are important within HMO’s, would also feel enclosed and oppressive.

I do not find harm in relation to the size of the rear garden space. This would be a communal area which would be of a sufficient size for various tables and chairs. Indeed, it would not be reasonable to assess the proposals against criteria that relate to family housing. The fact that the garden would be directly accessed from certain bedrooms would not reduce its usability for other occupiers. Furthermore, the garden would be easily accessed externally, and therefore the lack of internal access for certain occupiers would not be harmful.

The very nature of HMO’s means that it is quite normal for some bedrooms to be adjacent to kitchen areas or other communal spaces. The Council has referenced an appeal decision where such a juxtaposition was found to be harmful. However, it appears that no further details have been provided, and in this instance, I can see no reason why such an arrangement would be unacceptable in terms of noise and disturbance.

The Council also appears to have miscalculated the size of bedroom five in No. 526A. This would be a large room which would easily exceed the minimum space requirements within the NDSS. The proposed air conditioning units would be situated close to bedroom spaces. However, the noise emanating from these units could be sufficiently controlled via the imposition of a suitably worded condition. Finally, the busy nature of [site address] means that I am also satisfied that the potential for a greater level of movement and activity associated with HMO’s would not be sufficient to cause undue disturbance to nearby residents.

However, as a result of the poor outlook in relation to bedroom two in No. 526A, and the lack of windows within two of the communal dining spaces, I do find that the proposal would harm the living conditions of future occupiers. As such, it would conflict with the relevant aspects of LP Policy H20 which seek to ensure that sufficient living conditions are provided.

The most relevant development plan policy to this particular issue is Core Policy 4 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (the CS). The policy states that, in urban areas outside of the town centre, residential development will predominantly consist of family housing. Crucially, this wording does not explicitly prevent the provision of other forms of housing in such areas.

The policy also notes that there will be no net loss of family accommodation as a result of changes of use. However, in this instance, while the proposal would alter the existing pattern of occupation within the dwellings, the proposed internal alterations would not be of significance, and the use of the three properties could revert back to family housing under use class C3 at any point. As such, the proposal would not represent a permanent loss of family accommodation.

The policy also notes that high density housing should be located within the town centre. However, the proposal does not include the provision of additional built form beyond the planned extensions, and I am therefore content that the density of the existing development would not be increased.

As a result, I am satisfied that the proposal would be in a suitable location. It would therefore conform with [name] 1 and 4, the relevant aspects of which seek to ensure that development is located in suitable locations, including by directing higher density schemes to the town centre and avoiding the loss of family homes in other areas.

[site address] is a relatively busy thoroughfare which runs from north to south towards Slough town centre. During my site visit I observed that the immediate area feels highly suburban with relatively low-density housing of different kinds.

It is clear from the plans that the appearance of the three dwellings subject to this appeal would change very little in terms of how they are perceived from the road. Changes to the fenestration would be made as part of the proposals, particularly in relation to the rear elevations. Moreover, external air conditioning units would also be provided. However, there is little in the way of homogeny with regards to the design of dwellings in the immediate area, and I therefore do not find harm in relation to these matters.

Nevertheless, external appearance is only one consideration, and it is therefore important to assess how the intended use could impact upon the surrounding character. At present, it is possible that large families could live in each of the dwellings. However, on balance, the utilisation of the three buildings as HMO’s would likely represent a more intensive use with five adults in each. In turn, this would lead to more comings and goings and general activity, including car movements and refuse storage. Nevertheless, [site address] is not a quiet residential cul-de-sac or some such, and given the busy nature of the road, I find it unlikely that any increase in activity associated with the change of use would be of a sufficient level to result in material harm.

As a result, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conform with the relevant aspects of [name] 4 and 8, which taken together, seek to ensure that development is well designed and that local character is preserved.

I note that No. [site address] would have a door from the communal kitchen which appears to lead to an external area that lies outside of the provided red line boundary. However, such boundary issues are a legal matter, and this is therefore not a determinative feature of this appeal.

A lack of bicycle storage was referred to within the Council’s officer report. However, I am satisfied that this issue could be addressed via conditions.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being just 2.5 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of three small HMO’s that could assist in meeting need in the area and provide support for local facilities. There would also be some economic benefits in terms of facilitating the works proposed. However, I only afford limited weight to these benefits overall given that they are relatively minor in nature.

I have concluded that there would be material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers, and the potential for harm in relation to highway safety. The support for the principle of development within the Framework, including making efficient use of land, is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that provides good living conditions and ensures that there would not be unacceptable impacts in relation to highway safety. In this instance, the combined harm would be significant and enduring.

As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.