Appeal 6004629

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address], with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy H10 of the Salford Local Plan 2013 (LP) establishes the criteria governing the conversion and change of use of existing dwellings into specified alternative uses, including Houses in [name] (HMOs). The policy is explicit that such conversions will only be supported where it is clearly demonstrated that the development would not, either in isolation or cumulatively with other nearby schemes, result in any single dwelling being positioned immediately adjacent to more than one property falling within the listed uses. These include existing HMOs and non-residential properties.

No. [address] is a neighbouring dwelling, attached to the appeal property. The evidence before me dictates that this property is in use as a Use Class C3 Dwelling. The next building along [address] from No. 17 is [name]. This is a non-residential use which is included in the list provided at Policy H10 of the LP.

The key element of Policy H10 is its use of the term “adjacent”, which is undefined within the policy. In the absence of a formal definition, its interpretation necessarily relies upon planning judgment. The term “adjacent” extends beyond properties that are directly attached. It reasonably encompasses buildings that are close to or immediately neighbouring one another. When applying this interpretation, No. 17 would be positioned adjacent both to the non‐residential [name] and to the proposed HMO. This is due to its close distance to the Synagogue, and its attached nature to the appeal proposal. This configuration would result in a single dwelling being flanked by more than one property falling within the uses identified in Policy H10. Consequently, the proposal fails to comply with the clear requirements of Policy H10 of the LP.

The proposed HMO development would be provided for 8 individuals. It is contended that in its existing form, it is occupied by a large 12-person family. However, this is not a matter which is clarified by convincing evidence. In any case, it is evident from the plans before me that the existing configuration of the appeal property is a large dwelling with space to accommodate a large family unit. It is not unreasonable to expect members of a family to have their own working hours, a difference in behaviour and comings and goings. However, there is an expectation that this would be intensified in HMO properties due to the unconnected relationship of each resident.

Taking account of the size of the appeal property, the activity generated by 8 persons living independent lives, with separate routines, and their attendant comings and goings along with those of their visitors and deliveries, would lead to a level of activity that would be more marked and intensive than that which could reasonably be expected to be associated with a single house, even one occupied by a large family.

During my site visit, it was evident that the [name] functions as a sizeable community facility. Given its scale and purpose, this non‐residential use is likely to generate and attract a substantial level of activity, particularly during congregational services and community events, resulting in a high number of comings and goings.

Owing to the limited on‐site parking provision, it is reasonable to expect that attendees would park along [address], thereby increasing associated activity in the immediate vicinity, particularly outside of No. 17, given its adjacent position. As such, noise sources such as door‐slamming, engine idling, and in‐car audio would be brought closer to this residential property. Taken cumulatively, the intensified activity on both sides of No. 17 would materially erode the living conditions of its occupants, particularly in relation to noise and general disturbance.

When the activity levels of both neighbouring uses, their proximity to No. 17, and their combined operational characteristics are considered together, it is clear that No. 17 would be subjected to a pronounced “sandwiching” effect between two high‐intensity use properties. There would be a conscious feeling of being flanked by these non-typical residential uses, which would heighten their effects upon this neighbour.

Several intervening features between No. 17 and the [name] were highlighted by the appellant and were also observed during my site visit. These include the presence of a boundary wall, the separation created by the side garden, a topography difference and the access road to [address]. The appellant further notes that the Synagogue’s main entrance is positioned further along [address], away from No. 17. While this may be accurate, parking opportunities along [address] are limited, meaning that vehicles associated with the Synagogue are still likely to park along [address], directly outside No. 17. As a result, the extent to which these intervening features can meaningfully mitigate the regular noise and activity generated by those travelling to attend the Synagogue during its sessions would be limited.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policy H10 of the LP, of which the stipulations of this policy have previous been identified. It would also conflict with Policy D5 of the LP, which requires development to ensure that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the users of other buildings.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.