Appeal 6004886

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has referred to the emerging [site address] City Plan, for which the Regulation 19 Consultation has recently closed. Drawing on the criteria in paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the Council considers that policies in that Plan should hold little weight in the decision-making process. Given the early stage of the emerging plan preparation, I see no reason to disagree with that view.

The Council has raised no objection to the proposed internal and external alterations to the property to facilitate the change of use. The main issue, therefore, is the site is suitable for a HMO, having regard to the balance and mix of the community.

The appeal site consists of a modern three-storey, terraced building which is in an established residential area comprising similar properties. The Council has confirmed that the area is covered by an Article 4 Direction1 removing permitted development rights that allow the change of use from a dwellinghouse to a house in multiple occupation (HMO), in order to control the number and concentration of HMOs.

Policy HN7 of the Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019) (Plan:MK) states that in order to maintain mixed, balanced, sustainable and inclusive communities, proposals for HMOs will be approved where they would not create an over concentration of such accommodation resulting in an imbalance within local communities or other significant adverse impacts. 1 Effective from June 2011.

The Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) highlights that an over concentration of any one particular type of housing or household can lead to wider effects on the character of an area and can give rise to a lack of community integration and cohesion. The guidance set out in the SPD seeks to maintain a mix of dwelling types in areas of high demand for HMOs, whilst not reducing the overall supply of HMOs across [site address] . Whilst the SPD refers to previous, now superseded development plan policies, it remains a material consideration to which I attach weight.

The SPD states that in order to ensure that a proposal would not lead to an unacceptable concentration of HMOs within an area, the number of HMOs should not exceed 35% of the total number of properties within a 100m diameter buffer of the subject property.

Policy WN11 of the Wroughton Community Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017) (the Neighbourhood Plan) seeks to manage the concentration of HMOs in any one area, due to the amenity problems that can be caused by the transient nature of their occupants particularly where such properties are clustered in a small area. The Development Plan states that the number of HMOs in the Netherfield grid square, in which the appeal site is located, should not exceed 20% of the total number of properties within a 100m diameter buffer of an application property.

The Council has identified that there are 35 dwellings within a radius of 50m of the appeal property, including 3 HMOs with a combined total of 18 bedrooms. Were the appeal to be allowed HMOs would make up 42% of properties, within the identified search area. I have not been presented with any evidence which would lead me to disagree with this figure which, at 42%, exceeds the 35% figure provided for in the SPD and is more than double the 20% maximum figure in the more recent Neighbourhood Plan.

The conflict with both the SPD and Neighbourhood Plan supports the view that the proposal would exacerbate the existing concentration of HMOs within the surrounding area of the appeal site. This would impact on community integration and cohesion, with the potential to impact on the amenity of existing residents caused by the transient nature of the occupants of HMOs.

I therefore find that the appeal site would not be suitable for a HMO, having regard to the balance and mix of the community. It would, therefore, be contrary to the aims of Policy HN7 of Plan:MK and Policy WN11 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seek to ensure that development proposals respond appropriately to the surrounding context and maintain mixed, balanced, sustainable and inclusive communities. The proposal would also be contrary to the SPD, the aims of which are set out above.

The proposed development would provide low cost accommodation for employees of the appellant, in close proximity to nearby shops and other services. However, this does not outweigh the conflict I have identified with the development plan on the main issue, arising from the overconcentration of HMOs and the resultant effect on community balance.

I recognise that there would be little change to the appearance of the building and that other matters, such as adequate bicycle parking, are considered to be acceptable. However, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters weighs neutrally in the planning balance.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.