Appeal 6004573

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “Internal alterations to facilitate the Change of use from C4 (6 bed HMO) to [name] (7 [name])” at [site address] , Ashford, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01276/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PR- P001, PR- P002, PR- P004, PR- E001, PR- E002, PR- E003, PR- E004, PR- L002, PR- S001 and PR- S002.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The occupation of the House of [name] hereby permitted shall be limited to a maximum of 7 persons at any time.

A previous appeal against the refusal of planning permission (the earlier appeal decision), for essentially the same development as that before me, was recently dismissed1. In that case, the proposal was assessed on the basis of a change of use from a C3 residential use, rather than a C4 HMO as set out in the description before me.

Both the Council, together with the earlier appeal decision, both reference a refused application for a Certificate of Lawful Development2 which was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the C4 use had been implemented prior to an Article 4 direction coming into force,

Since that decision was made, and during the course of this appeal, I have been advised that the Council has adopted the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024 to 20239/40 on 17 March 2026 (LP) and the “Managing the Development of House in [name] (HMOs) Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The LP has replaced the 2009 [name] and Policies Plan Document. 1 Appeal Ref 3374915 determined 23 February 2026 2 LPA Application Reference 25/01251/CPD determined 08 December 2025

The main parties were invited to provide comments on the new LP in relation to their cases. I have had regard to the comments received from the appellant in my determination of this appeal, no comments from the Council were received, therefore the policies against which I have determined the appeal are those identified by the appellant.

Given the similarities between the proposal, the recent appeal is a significant material consideration. [name] have assessed the current scheme on its own merit and reached independent conclusions, I have had close regard to the findings of the previous appeal, together with those changes to development plan policies and guidance referenced above.

There is another appeal pending at the appeal site3, relating to an appeal against a Lawful Development Certificate (section 192), with the proposed development in that case also relating to a change of use to form a 7-bed HMO. That appeal will be the subject of a separate decision.

Despite the similarities in the proposed development, an appeal under s192 is concerned only with establishing whether the proposal would be lawful, as a matter of fact and law, rather than planning judgement. It also does not seek a determination of the building’s existing lawful use. I am therefore satisfied that the present appeal can be determined on its own merits, independently of the pending application.

Therefore, notwithstanding the description of development on the application form, which is also reflected in the banner heading above, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of a proposed change of use, together with internal alterations from a C3 residential dwelling to a sui generis 7-bed HMO.

Whilst the Council has expressed its objections to the scheme within a single reason for refusal, this reason covers multiple issues, and as such I have broken this into the following main issues:  whether the proposed development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupants, with regard to the provision of communal space, outlook, odour and parking; and  the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of adjoining properties, with particular reference to refuse storage, and noise and disturbance.

The proposal would provide 7 bedrooms, a shared kitchen-dining space, and an L-shaped garden. The Council’s concerns relate to the absence of a separate living space, the size and shape of the garden, and the proximity of the cycle and refuse stores.

In respect of space standards and communal space, the Council’s recently adopted Managing the Development of Houses in [name] (HMOs) 3 Appeal Ref 3377677 (decision pending) Supplementary Planning Guidance ([name]) refers back to the 2005 document, [name] to Standards for Houses in [name]. This guidance states that, for HMOs accommodating 6–10 people, where bedrooms exceed 8.5sqm for single occupancy, no additional communal living space is required beyond a shared kitchen/diner. In this case, the proposed kitchen-dining area comfortably exceeds the minimum requirement.

While these standards are dated, there are no more up-to-date standards before me. Given that they are explicitly referenced within the recently adopted [name], I consider that they should be given significant weight. At the time of the previous appeal, the [name] had not been adopted. In my view, this represents a material change in policy context and supports a different conclusion in this case.

In respect of external amenity space, new HMO proposals are expected to comply with the Council’s Design of [name] and New Residential Development SPD (the [name]). This sets out that dwellinghouses of three or more bedrooms should be provided with a minimum of 70sqm of usable garden space.

In this case, the proposed garden would fall short of this requirement. I accept that HMOs do not use outdoor space in the same way as family dwellings. However, my attention has not been drawn to any alternative standards that apply specifically to HMOs in this regard. I also note that the usability of the space is somewhat constrained by its L-shaped layout and limited depth. In practical terms, this would restrict the number of occupiers who could use the space together or enjoy it as a group.

That said, in my judgement, occupiers of an HMO are less likely to use outdoor space collectively in the same way as a single household. The garden would still provide usable space for a small number of occupiers at any one time and could accommodate seating, planting, or other forms of outdoor use. Taking these factors into account, I consider that the shortfall in garden size, and the resulting conflict with the [name], should be afforded only limited weight.

The Council also refer to the close proximity of the cycle and refuse stores to the windows of Units 1 and 5. However, both the bin and cycle stores would be set away from the ground floor windows to a degree. The cycle store would be positioned along the front boundary, while the bin store would sit against the side boundary. The section of the bin store directly facing the ground floor window would be of limited depth. In addition, both structures would be modest in height, with minimal projection above the existing boundary treatments.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed stores would not result in any unacceptable harm to outlook or in terms of odour from the relevant ground floor rooms.

The Council’s parking standards are expressed as a minimum requirement of 2.5 spaces for dwellings of 4 or more bedrooms. However, in their assessment, the Council appear to have rounded this up to 3 spaces, whereas the standard itself clearly refers to 2.5 spaces.

In comparison, the existing dwelling is a 3-bedroom property in excess of 80sqm, which generates a parking requirement of 2.25 spaces. Given that there are currently no suitable off-street parking spaces serving the property, the net increase in parking demand arising from the proposal would equate to just 0.25 of a space. It is not reasonably practical to provide a quarter of a parking space.

There are no parking restrictions along [address] and, at the time of my site visit, there were several on-street spaces available. While this represents only a snapshot in time and may not reflect all periods, it does provide some indication of existing parking capacity within the immediate area.

Furthermore, my reading of the background to the parking standards, is that their purpose to promote sustainable travel. The Council’s concern in this instance instead relates to the provision of a suitable standard of accommodation. My attention has not been drawn to any relevant policy which supports the application of parking standards for this purpose.

Taking all of the above into account, there is no clear or evidenced justification to support the view that the proposal would result in a harmful level of additional parking demand when compared to the existing situation.

Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. While there is a shortfall in external amenity space when assessed against the [name], I have attributed this matter only limited weight and accordingly, this is outweighed by compliance in all other respects.

The proposal therefore accords with Policies PS2, H1 of the LP, and the [name] when taken as a whole. Taken together, they seek to ensure that new residential development provides a high standard of accommodation, including adequate internal space, suitable amenity provision, and acceptable living conditions for future occupants.

It is also suggested that the proposal would give rise to noise and disturbance, to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers. The use of the property as an HMO may result in a greater number of comings and goings compared to a single dwellinghouse. However, I am not persuaded that the number of occupants, or the nature of the use, would give rise to an unacceptable level of noise or disturbance.

In this regard, plots along [address] are relatively wide, and neighbouring properties are not in close proximity to the appeal site. This provides a reasonable degree of separation and would limit the potential for any additional activity to result in material harm.

I also note that the previous appeal found the impact on neighbouring living conditions to be acceptable. The Council has not identified any material change in circumstances, nor provided clear justification, to support reaching a different conclusion in this case.

I therefore find that the proposal would not result in any adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and would accord with the relevant requirements of Policies PS2, H1 of the LP, insofar as they as they seek to ensure that development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

I note that the Council’s delegated officer report, as well as representations from interested parties, raise concerns about the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. In particular, this relates to the cycle and bin stores located at the front of the building. However, despite these concerns, the Council did not identify harm to such an extent as to justify a reason for refusal.

I have had regard to the findings of the previous inspector, who found that their appearance, which would exceed the low boundary treatments, and their siting close to the frontage, would appear unduly prominent given the absence of other storage type structures within garden frontages.

However, from my own observations, I note that the extent to which they would project above the boundary treatments would be relatively modest, they would appear visibly subordinate to the main dwelling, and given these factors, despite the absence of similar structures, this variation in built form along the frontages would not cause harm to the street scene. It would also be possible to control their details to ensure an appropriate appearance. Therefore, I find no reason to disagree with the Council.

In addition to the matters set out above, I acknowledge that local residents have raised concerns regarding the absence of enforcement action. This is a matter for the Council to address and has not affected my assessment of the appeal proposal.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions in the event of my allowing the appeal, I have considered these in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. I have edited some of the suggested conditions for clarity and enforceability.

A time limit and plan numbers conditions are required in the interest of certainty. In addition, a condition limiting occupancy to no more than 7 persons is required to reflect the proposed scheme and ensure a suitable standard of accommodation.

Whilst the Council has recommended a number of additional conditions relating to secure bicycle and refuse storage, together with e-bike charging, I note that detailed plans have already been submitted for the cycle and refuse stores. There is no clear evidence before me to demonstrate why these details are inadequate or would fail to provide acceptable facilities.

In respect of e-bike charging, no up-to-date policy justification has been provided to support such a requirement. The proposed materials appear appropriate to the character of the area, and provision is made for 7 cycle spaces, which I consider to be sufficient in this case.

In light of this, I find that additional conditions to secure further details are neither necessary nor justified.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted.