Appeal 6005078

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from single dwellinghouse to small HMO for up to six people at [site address] , Barkingside, Ilford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3178/25, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: NH-108-PL-001, NH-08-PL-002, NH-108-PL-003 [name], NH-108-PL-003 Proposed Section, NH-108-PL-005 and Location Plan, and documents: Design and [name], Fire Risk Assessment, HMO Management Plan, Waste Management Plan and Travel and [name].

Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the first use of the building for the purpose hereby approved, secured, sheltered cycle parking spaces for six bicycles shall be provided on site in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle storage shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the provision of larger family-sized homes in the area.

Policy LP5 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (2018) (LP) seeks to secure a range of homes that will contribute to the creation of mixed, inclusive and sustainable communities by seeking all housing developments to provide a range of dwelling sizes and tenures particularly focusing on the provision of larger family sized homes (three bedroom plus). This policy is consistent with paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community are assessed and reflected in planning policies.

The proposed change of use of No 54 to a HMO for up to six occupants could result in the loss of a family dwellinghouse. However, the Council confirmed that it granted planning permission for the change of use of [site address] (No 54) to a house of multiple occupation (HMO) for up to six people in April 20241 (the previous permission) and that this permission remains extant until 11 April 2027. Without any evidence to suggest otherwise, this represents a realistic fall-back position for the appellant, and such change of use could occur regardless of this

Even if it did not, while the proposed developed would not align with the focus in Policy LP5 of the LP on the provision of larger family sized homes, this policy does not preclude the delivery of other types of homes. Indeed, the supporting text to Policy LP5 indicates that it is important that an appropriate mix of housing to meet the needs of people at different stages of their life cycle and with differing living arrangements. HMOs can play an important role in meeting the needs of specific groups. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to support for HMOs provided in Policy H9 of the TLP, which requires Boroughs to take account of the role of HMOs in meeting local and strategic housing needs.

It is acknowledged that the supporting text to Policy LP5 of the LP also emphasises the need to provide and protect family housing in order to maintain a balanced housing stock which reflects overall need outside of town centres. The Council also introduced an Article 4 Direction in 2019 removing permitted development rights for changes of use to HMOs, reflecting concern it has about the potential effect of such changes on the supply of family-sized dwellings. Figures provided within the Council’s statement also indicate high numbers of applications relating to changes of use to HMOs in the Borough and the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2023 update) identifies that the greatest need in the Borough is for family sized three bedroom plus homes.

Nevertheless, although no specific need for HMOs has been demonstrated in the evidence before me, neither would the proposed development result in a clear conflict with Policy LP5 of the LP. This is because it would provide a form of housing that would make a modest contribution to diversifying the range of accommodation available to meet the needs of different groups, including single people, sharers and those unable to access self-contained housing. As a residential use, it would provide homes for its occupiers and could revert to a Use Class C3 dwellinghouse if circumstances change.

The proposed development would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs on [address], having regard to the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2019), which seeks not more than 20% of properties on any road and only one in a consecutive row of five units. Although higher concentrations may exist in the wider area, this does not give rise to conflict with the SPD.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable effect on the provision of family-sized homes in the area. In this 1 Council ref: 0390/24 regard, there would be no conflict with Policy LP5 of the LP for the aforementioned

While the Council’s decision refers to policy LP26 of the LP, that policy relates to promoting high quality design and is not directly relevant to the main issue.

Although not referred to on the Council’s decision notice, the Council has drawn my attention to Policy LP6 insofar as it seeks to protect against the loss of family-sized homes. However, this policy is not directly relevant to the proposed development as it relates to proposals for self-contained units or to HMO’s which fall under the sui generis use class. As such, I find that Policy LP6 is not applicable in this case.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is designated for its stag beetle, beech forests and semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland. It is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The Council’s mitigation strategy2 (the strategy) identifies the forms of development which, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, have the potential to give rise to adverse effects through deterioration of habitat quality, including as a result of increased recreational disturbance. However, the strategy confirms that conversions from dwellinghouses to HMO’s (Use Class C4) would not incur a mitigation charge. This is because it would be unlikely to result in any material increase in recreational pressure, or other impact pathway capable of giving rise to a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, having regard to its existing use.

The Council has drawn my attention has been drawn to an appeal decision at 35 Coventry Road3. However, that appeal related to a proposal for flats as opposed to a HMO. Accordingly, the development plan policies applicable to that decision differ and its circumstances are not therefore directly comparable with those which apply in this appeal. In any event, I reached my own conclusions on the proposed development on the basis of the evidence before me.

The Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate the necessary five-year housing land supply, with the latest figure indicating a significant shortfall in housing delivery against its targets. Ordinarily, this would engage paragraph 11(d) of the Framework However, the policies most relevant to this appeal are not directly concerned with the overall supply of housing and therefore continue to attract significant weight. In any event, as I have found no harm and no conflict with the development plan policies, it is not necessary for me to apply the requirements of that paragraph because the appeal scheme is acceptable.

Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, amending the wording where necessary to ensure precision and omitting others for the reasons set out below. 2 Natural Greenspace Improvement Strategy London Borough of Redbridge (2024) 3 Appeal ref: APP/W5780/W/24/3356002

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents (2) in the interests of certainty. To promote sustainable travel, I have included a condition (3) requiring the provision of cycle storage.

It would not be reasonable or necessary to impose a condition requiring the submission of a further HMO management plan (MP). This is because the proposed occupation of No 54 would be limited to six persons, the submitted MP broadly addresses the matters set out in the SPD, and many of these considerations would in any event be controlled through HMO licensing requirements. A separate condition to secure access to communal areas for all occupants would similarly be unnecessary. Moreover, it is not necessary to impose a condition limiting the number of residents to six, as this is already defined by the description of development, and any additional residents would require planning permission.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.