Appeal 6004967

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the planning application form proposed the “change of use of an existing two-storey dwelling (Use Class C3) to form two single-occupancy bedsits ([name]), each with independent cooking and bathroom facilities, and laundry/utility access”. At the request of the council, the appellant agreed to change the description of development to “Change of use of an existing two-storey dwelling to create two 1-bedroom self-contained flats” on 5 December 2025. Despite this, the application was determined on 9 December 2025 with the original description of development on the decision notice, although it is clear from the council’s delegated report that it considered the development to be the conversion of the property to two self-contained flats.

Notwithstanding the earlier agreement to a change of description, the appellant’s appeal submissions maintain that the proposed development is the change of use to a House in [name] (bedsits) within Use Class C4.

Class C4 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended): “Houses in [name]” (HMO) applies where houses are occupied by not more than 6 unrelated individuals, as an HMO. For this purpose, HMO has the same meaning as that defined in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.

The Housing Act (the Act) states that a building is an HMO if, amongst other requirements, it consists of one or more units of living accommodation not consisting of a self-contained flat or flats, and two or more of the households who occupy the living accommodation share one or more basic amenities. Basic amenities are defined in the Act as a toilet, personal washing facilities and cooking facilities.

Furthermore, the Act defines a self-contained flat as a separate set of premises which forms part of a building, either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building, and in which all three basic amenities are available for the exclusive use of its occupants.

The plans depicting the proposed development show that two units of accommodation are proposed. Each would have an independent access off a shared hallway and would provide a bedroom, kitchen/lounge, bathroom and utility room (shown to include a washing machine/dryer) for exclusive use by the occupier. The units of accommodation include no shared internal facilities despite the appellant’s submissions to the contrary. Importantly, each unit provides all three of the ‘basic amenities’ for exclusive use by the occupant of the unit, and one unit is positioned above the other. The proposed accommodation therefore meets the definition in the Act as self-contained flats and moreover does not meet the definition for an HMO.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal depicted on the plans is more appropriately and accurately described as the conversion of an existing two-storey dwelling to create two 1-bedroom self-contained flats. I have used that description in the banner header above and determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to internal space and the provision of appropriate refuse and cycle storage facilities.

Policy 45 “[name]” of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (2021) (the LP) requires that all new housing should meet the [name] (NDSS) as a minimum. Both parties acknowledge that as flats, each fails to meet the NDSS, with the ground-floor flat falling 7sqm short and the first-floor flat 3sqm short of the standards for a single person flat. The appellant advances that as the proposal constitutes an HMO, the NDSS do not apply. For the reasons above I do not find that position convincing.

In falling short of the standards advanced by the Government to be the minimum acceptable size for habitation, the proposal would provide inadequate living standards for the occupant of each flat. The flats would fail to provide sufficient floorspace to allow occupants to enjoy reasonable living standards and their living conditions would be cramped. The proposal accordingly conflicts with Policy 45 of the LP.

The development would provide for the shared use of a rear yard by occupants of the flats. The yard would include areas for bin and cycle storage. The layout of the proposal is such that only the ground-floor flat would be provided with direct access to the shared yard. The occupier of the first-floor flat would be required to exit the premises by the front door and walk via [address], [address] and [address] to the yard’s rear gate to gain access; a convoluted and inconvenient route taking several minutes.

The lack of suitable, convenient access to the yard for the occupier of the first-floor flat is likely to discourage its use by that occupier, depriving them of convenient refuse disposal and cycle storage in addition to other outdoor amenities including facilities for drying clothes, compounding the unacceptable living conditions for the occupant.

In the absence of convenient private refuse storage, on-street storage of wheelie bins is likely with its associated harm to the visual appearance of the street, potential for misuse, inconvenience for pedestrians, and impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. In this regard the proposal conflicts with criteria B5 and B10 of Policy 44 and criteria A1 and A2 of Policy 10 of the LP.

The lack of convenient access to any secure cycle storage is likely to discourage cycling by the occupier of the first-floor flat as a sustainable choice of travel. Policy 16 of the LP aims to encourage cycling in Doncaster and in failing to provide appropriate cycle storage, the proposal conflicts with criteria B5 and C3 of the policy.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for the occupants of both flats due to the substandard internal floorspace provided. The tortuous and inconvenient route by which the first-floor occupant would be required to access the shared yard means proposed refuse and cycle storage facilities for that occupant would be unacceptable. As a consequence, the proposal conflicts with Policies 10, 16, 44 and 45 of the LP which among other things, require new residential development to provide adequate living conditions and promote cycle use.

The appellant has provided several documents in support of the appeal including “[name] – [name]”, “[name] – [name]” and “[name] – Management Plan”. Each document advances the position that the proposal constitutes an HMO. For the reasons above I do not find that to be the case and as such, the documents provided are not determinative in my decision.

The appellant advances that the delivery of the development would provide two high quality homes and optimise the use of land in a sustainable location. For the reasons above, I do not accept that homes which fail to meet minimum floorspace requirements or provide appropriately accessible space for the storage of bins or cycles can be considered high quality.

In “[name] – Procedural Chronology Statement”, the appellant raises concerns over the council’s handling of the application. Such matters fall outside the scope of this appeal and are a matter for the council and appellant to resolve.

I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.