Appeal 6004750

The appeal is dismissed.

The description indicates that the development is retrospective. During my site visit I observed that some of the rooms appeared to be occupied but the layout did not completely reflect that shown on the plans. Nevertheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal based on the submitted plans.

The appellant has submitted an amended plan with this appeal (ref. 25/186/003 [name]) which corrects an annotation error of the total Gross Internal Area (GIA) of Bedroom 3. As this correction does not seek to alter the scheme it does not make a substantial difference or fundamental change to the development when compared to the plan upon which the Council made its decision (noting the annotated dimensions of the room remain unchanged). The Council has also had the opportunity to review and comment on this plan. As such, it would not result in any procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal if I were to accept this plan. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis of this amended plan.

The appellant has also put forward that Bedroom 3 could be excluded as sleeping accommodation in the event that the GIA is found to be unacceptable. However, the appeal seeks permission for a HMO accommodating up to 6 people and I do not have substantive evidence before me to conclude whether the scheme would meet the relevant minimum space standards to accommodate up to 6 people if this bedroom were omitted. Moreover, this would conflict with the details on the submitted plans and fundamentally differ from the scheme that the Council based its decision upon, resulting in unlawful procedural unfairness. I therefore have not proceeded on this basis and have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants with regard to internal space.

The appeal relates to an existing 5-bedroomed semi-detached dwelling which is located in a predominately residential area. The proposal seeks permission for the conversion of the dwellinghouse into a House in [name] (HMO) for occupation by up to six people. The HMO would comprise a living room, dining room, TV room and kitchen at ground floor and five bedrooms and two bathrooms split across the first and loft floors.

Policy LP5 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (the RLP) seeks to ensure that the Borough’s housing stock provides for a range of housing needs and sizes, with a focus on the provision and protection of larger, family-sized homes that are of 3 bedrooms or more. The Havering and Redbridge Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (2023) (the LHNA) also identifies a significant need for homes of 3-bedrooms or more, accounting for 68.2% of the total market housing need in the Borough.

The description of development seeks permission for the change of use of the 5- bedroomed property to a small HMO. While still a residential use, conversion to a HMO would nevertheless preclude the dwelling from being utilised as family housing, even if the change of use could be reversed in the future. Even if I were to agree that the appeal scheme would not intensify the use of the property, it would still remove a family-sized dwellinghouse from the market, for which there is a significant need identified in the LHNA.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the size, configuration or condition of the property means that it would not be attractive, affordable or accessible to be feasibly occupied by a family. Moreover, the Council concluding the scheme would not undermine the balance of the local community or lead to an over-concentration of HMOs does not overcome the fact that the scheme would still result in the loss of a large family-sized house which the RLP seeks specifically to protect against.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would result in the unacceptable loss of a family-sized dwelling and thus would have a detrimental effect on the supply of such housing within the Borough. This is contrary to Policy LP5 of the RLP insofar as it promotes the provision of larger family-sized homes to meet the housing needs of the Borough. While the Council has referred to Policy LP26 of the RLP, as this relates to matters of design quality it has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The Council’s concerns relate to Bedroom 3 which is located on the first floor. This bedroom is shown as single occupancy with a GIA of [address] metres (sqm) and a width and depth of approximately 2.42m and 2.48m respectively.

[name] of the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (the SPD) defines the required space standards for HMOs. This states that for the purposes of obtaining planning permission, bedrooms are required to comply with the minimum standards in the [name]. This states that a single-bed, single occupancy room should be a minimum of 7.5sqm. Bedroom 3 would fall 1.5sqm short of these minimum space standards.

Even though the HMO would have a generous rear garden and communal internal space, the SPD sets out that all HMOs must provide a high-quality form of accommodation in accordance with the standards set out in [name]. A shortfall of 1.5sqm would fail to meet these standards and is not an insignificant amount. This is of particular concern for HMOs, given occupants share kitchen and living facilities and are therefore reliant on their bedrooms as their only private habitable space. This emphasises the importance of ensuring such spaces provide acceptable internal living conditions. Given this deficiency, I find that the HMO would fail to provide an acceptable living environment for all future occupants. This conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which supports developments with a high standard of amenity for future users.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants with particular regard to internal space. This is contrary to Policies LP26 and LP29 of the RLP and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) insofar as they seek to ensure that developments provide a high standard of residential accommodation, including in respect of the size and quality of internal space and the [name] set out in the SPD.

The Council has raised no objection to the development in respect of its effects on several matters including the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, character and appearance of the area, parking provision and highway safety. However, these matters are neutral factors and do not alter my findings on the main issues.

I have found that the appeal scheme would adversely affect the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough and would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants, contrary to the aforementioned policies of the RLP and London Plan. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it has failed to satisfy the [name] with housing completions at 39% of its target. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. In this case, this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including making effective use of land in meeting the identified need for different types of housing.

On one hand, the scheme would provide a HMO that could accommodate six occupants, arguably resulting in a more intensive use of the property and effective use of land in a sustainable location with access to services and facilities. This would contribute to the mix of housing within the area and align with policies within the Framework which seek to significantly boost the supply and variety of homes. There would also be some economic benefits through future occupiers contributing to the local economy.

However, the appeal site is already in residential use. Therefore, the proposal would not add in numerical terms to the quantum of the housing stock as it would not result in the creation of a new dwelling. Moreover, given the scale of the development, any associated social, economic or environmental benefits would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position. Therefore, the weight attached to these benefits overall is limited.

On the other hand, the development would result in the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse which would fail to meet the prioritised housing needs for the Borough and would not provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupants. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects both a high standard of amenity to be achieved for future users and the delivery of homes that meet an area’s identified housing needs, including the needs of different groups in the community such as families with children. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

As such, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.