Appeal 6005192

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to a small HMO (Use Class C4) for four people with associated waste/refuse, car parking, cycle store and amenity space at [site address] , Newbury Park, Ilford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2249/25, 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: PL01, PL02, PL03 [name] and documents: [name], Waste and Refuse Management Plan and the HMO Management Plan.

The description of development in the application form refers to the application as being retrospective. However, this is not a description of development, and this has been removed from the description of development in the banner heading above.

In any event, the Council contends that the development proposed is not retrospective as it considers [site address] (No 38) to be operating within Use Class C2 (residential institution) 1, rather than as a house of multiple occupation (HMO), and refers to previous applications for lawful development2 that were refused. However, it is not for me, in the context of this appeal, to determine the lawful use of No 38, and the Council retains separate powers to take enforcement action should it consider that a breach of planning control has occurred.

In this regard, the Council’s decision refers to the submitted plans and information as being ambiguous and inconsistent. The appellant’s plans appear to correspond with what I observed during my site visit. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the plans as submitted. 1 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). 2 Council refs: 2278/24 and 3486/24.

Furthermore, the planning history indicates that the lawful use of No 38 is likely to be as a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3), which is also reflected in the description of development set out in the Council’s decision. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Therefore, for the purposes of my decision paragraph, I have used the revised description of development provided in the Council’s decision and on the appellant’s appeal form, as this more accurately reflects the appeal development.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the provision of family sized-homes in the area; • whether or not the proposed development provides suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of indoor living space; • whether or not the proposed development makes suitable provision for vehicle parking, cycle parking and refuse storage having regard to the front forecourt layout.

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 38 to a HMO for four occupants would result in the loss of a family dwellinghouse. While this 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 regard, there would be no conflict with Policies LP2 and LP5 of the LP and Policy H8 of The London Plan (TLP) which seek to resist the net loss of residential accommodation; to secure a range of homes that will contribute to the creation of mixed, inclusive and sustainable communities; to ensure loss of existing housing is replaced by new housing.

The Council’s decision refers to Policy LP4 of the LP and H12 of the TLP in the context of the proposed development being for specialist accommodation in operation within Use Class C2. However, this is not what has been applied for, as set out in the preliminary matters. Policy H1 of the TLP relates to increasing housing supply and does not specifically address changes of use to HMOs. The Council on also cites Policy LP26 of the LP, which concerns promoting high quality design and is not directly relevant to the main issue. My attention has also been drawn to Policy LP6 of the LP, which seeks to protect family-sized homes, however this applies to proposals for self-contained units or HMOs within sui generis use class and is not directly applicable. Accordingly, none of these policies are material to this main issue.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the combined floor area of living, dining and kitchen spaces significantly exceed the minimum required combined floor area of 27 sqm set out in the SPD. The basis for requiring an additional communal living room is unclear. In any event, any shortfall relative to the SPD guidance in overall communal floorspace provision would be limited. Furthermore, the plans indicate the provision of a separate sitting room at first floor level. Notwithstanding any licensing requirements, I observed during my site visit that the level of indoor living space would adequately meet the needs of four occupants. I therefore find that the proposed development would broadly comply with the guidance set out in the SPD.

The bedroom at second floor level would also significantly exceed the minimum floorspace requirements set out in the SPD for a single occupier. While sectional drawings have not been provided, my observations during the site visit indicate that, even when taking into account areas of reduced headroom due to the roof slope, the usable floorspace would be likely to meet the minimum requirements. In any event, I observed that the room, including its en-suite facilities, would provide sufficient space to meet the needs of a single occupier.

I conclude that the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of indoor living space. In this regard, it would comply with Policy LP26 of the LP which require high standards of accommodation for housing in terms of size, quality and arrangement of internal space. For the same reasons, the proposed development would not conflict with the Framework insofar as it requires a high standard of amenity for future users.

While the Council’s decision refers to Policy LP6 of the LP, this policy is not directly relevant to the proposed development as it relates to proposals for self-contained units or to larger HMO’s which fall under the sui generis use class. As such, I find that Policy LP6 is not applicable in this case.

The appellant’s site plan does not comprise a detailed drawing of the driveway area to the front of No 38. However, the proposed development would not involve any alterations to this part of the site.

Although the plans indicate three off-street parking spaces, the forecourt would, in practice, be likely to accommodate only two vehicles without overhanging the footway. Nevertheless, the Council does not contend that the provision of two parking spaces would be unacceptable, having regard to the site’s PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) rating of 3. Furthermore, given that the proposed number of occupiers would be broadly comparable to that associated with the use of No 38 as a dwellinghouse, the proposed development would be unlikely to result in a material change in the operation of the site or its effects on the highway. Therefore, I find it would neither be reasonable or necessary to require a more detailed forecourt plan.

For similar reasons, refuse storage and collection arrangements would not differ materially from the previous use. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that, subject to appropriate management, the proposed development would give rise to bin overspill, pest infestation or unhygienic conditions, or that access to the side garage (proposed as a cycle store) or the front entrance would be impeded.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would make suitable provision for vehicle parking, cycle parking and refuse storage having regard to the front forecourt layout. In this regard, it would comply with Policy LP26 of the LP which requires high standards of accessible and inclusive design and appropriate facilities for refuse, recycling and servicing to be provided.

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 strategy3 (the strategy) identifies the forms of development which, either alone or in 3 Natural Greenspace Improvement Strategy London Borough of Redbridge (2024) 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 lawful use.

The Council has drawn my attention to an appeal decision at [address] 4. 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’s Officer report refers to a number of appeal decisions that were dismissed5. However, in respect of those dismissed for reasons relating to living conditions, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the circumstances of those cases are directly comparable or share the same characteristics as the appeal proposal, including in terms of internal layout. Furthermore, none of the cited decisions relate to the effect on the provision of family sized homes as a main issue. Accordingly, these examples do not alter my conclusions on the matters before me.

The Council 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.

Matters relating to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, provision of outdoor space, use of public spaces, fire safety, noise and disturbance and the character of the area are not disputed by the main parties. Furthermore, based on my own observations during the site visit, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion in these respects.

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.

Given that there is dispute between the main parties with regards to whether or not the development has begun, I have imposed the standard time limit condition (1). I also impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents (2) in the interests of certainty. 4 Appeal ref: APP/W5780/W/24/3356002 5 Appeal refs: APP/W5780/W/24/3355949, APP/W5780/W/24/3346274, APP/W5780/W/25/3360521, APP/W5780/W/24/3353013 and APP/W5780/W/24/3349740

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 38 would be limited to four 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 four, as this is already defined by the description of development, and any additional residents would require planning permission.

For the reasons set out in relation to the third main issue, it would not be reasonable or necessary to include a condition requiring the submission of a forecourt layout plan or the provision of cycle and refuse storage, as these arrangements already exist.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.