Appeal 6005200

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from an existing dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 7-bed, 7-person HMO (Use Class Sui Generis), in addition to the construction of an outrigger dormer, provision of cycle and refuse storage and all other works at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6005200, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached to this decision.

The description for the proposal differs on the council’s decision notice from that set out on the submitted application form. As the Council’s description better describes the proposal I have used it in this decision.

At the time the appeal application was submitted the existing property comprised a three bedroom dwelling. Since then, planning permission has been granted for a six person House in [name] (HMO). At the time of my appeal site visit it was clear that at least part of the approved scheme had been implemented.

The appellant did not submit a noise impact assessment with the appeal planning application. Whilst the appellant did offer to have one prepared, this was at a late stage in the processing of the application. The council advised that it would not accept a noise assessment for this reason. The appellant submitted a noise Impact assessment with their appeal documents in direct response to the council’s reason for refusal. As the appeal is following Part 2 of the written representation procedure the council and any interested parties will have had the opportunity to comment on it’s contents. Accordingly, the submitted noise impact assessment forms an integral and acceptable part of the appellants grounds of appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 and [address] (No.4 and No.8), with particular regard to noise.

The appeal site is located within a reasonably accessible residential area, where, in principle new housing development is acceptable. In their delegated report the Council confirms that the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 2014 (RGLP) does not include any policies which restrict the provision of HMO’s in this area. Also, that the Council’s Urban Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), states that the Royal Borough supports a range of home sizes. HMO’s form an important part of the provision of lower cost housing.

The appeal property comprises an inner terraced Victorian house that occupies an irregular shaped narrow plot that slopes down to the rear. In 2025 planning permission was granted for the change of use of the premises to a small House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class - C4). The approved scheme included an “L” shaped roof extension on the main rear roof slope and over the rear projecting wing; six bed/sitting rooms with en-suites, a communal kitchen and an unused room within the proposed roof extension. With the current appeal proposal, the unused second floor room would be used as a seventh bedroom and en-suite.

Due to their similarities the approved scheme is a material consideration of considerable weight in assessing the merits of the appeal proposal.

Collectively and amongst other things policies D13 and D14 of The London Plan seek to avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life. New noise generating development proposals close to residential uses should put in place measures to mitigate and manage any noise impacts on neighbouring residents. Permission should not normally be permitted where it has not been clearly demonstrated how noise will be mitigated and managed. [name](b) & E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 2014 (RGLP), reflect this. Paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) states that developments should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I appreciate that the proposal is for the conversion of a three bedroom dwelling to a seven bedroom HMO and that the noise generated by the comings and goings of the occupiers of a three bedroom house could potentially be lower than that of a six bedroom HMO. However, planning permission for a six bed HMO has been granted and I note that works have commenced on its implementation. Thus, it is appropriate to assess noise impact based on the difference between the approved and proposed schemes. As set out in their delegated report this is the approach taken by the council when they refused the appeal application and in their subsequent appeal statement,

The submitted Noise Impact Assessment was taken in accordance with the IENA guidance for [name], which the council acknowledge is reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the development. The IENA guidance states that an increase in noise of less than 2.9dB LAEQ is of negligible sensitivity to noise and so would be ‘[name]. Based on a worst case scenario the results of the modelling undertaken found that the noise generated by the comings and goings of 1-6 people would be 51 dB, whereas the noise generated by 1–7 people would be 52 dB. The increase would be ‘Not significant’ in accordance with the IEMA guidelines. This represents ‘[name] when assessed in conjunction with the Framework and NPSE.

The Council has confirmed that the appellants noise impact assessment addresses their concerns regarding noise and its potential impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.4 & No.8 and has overcome their reason for refusal. No concerns regarding its contents by other interested parties have been brought to my attention.

Internal noise could be dealt with through internal insulation and through the adoption of a site specific Operational Management Plan. The number of persons resident within the building at any time could be restricted to 7 and all internal and external changes to the building in the future could be controlled to ensure that they would not impact on the living conditions of local residents. As suggested by the council these are all matters that could be satisfactorily secured through the imposition of conditions.

The council and the appellant have referred to various appeal and planning application decisions, where large HMO’s have been either approved or refused due to noise generated by the coming and going of residents. However, limited details have been provided concerning these decisions and it is not stated whether they were accompanied by noise [name]. Rather than set a precedent they serve to highlight the need to assess each proposal on its individual merits and in accordance with the prevailing planning policies.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not have a noticeably greater impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.4 and No.8 due to noise and associated disturbance, than the approved HMO. Accordingly, the proposal complies with policies D13 & D14 of the London Plan, [name](b) & E(a) and paragraph 135 f) of the Framework.

The proposal would result in the provision of an additional residential unit over and above the six units already permitted. As such whilst the increase in units would be minimal it would make a very small contribution to the supply of home in the Borough. This is relevant because currently the council is unable to demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land supply. In this respect the proposal would accord with the aims and objectives of Chapter 5 of the Framework, policy GG4 of the London Plan and [name] H1, H2 and H9.

I note the concerns expressed regarding loss of privacy and overbearing visual impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings. I agree that the “L” shaped roof extension is visually overbearing and results in actual and perceived loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. However, the proposed rear roof extension already benefits from planning permission and from my appeal site visit it appears to have been constructed. In approving this roof extension, the council acknowledged the potential harm it could cause, but also acknowledged that in itself the roof extension benefitted from a Certificate of Lawful development. [name] similarly acknowledge the visual harm caused by the roof extension, it benefits from planning permission and thus would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal.

Regarding the level of development, the proposal would not introduce any new physical development or increase the number of rooms in the HMO. As stated in paragraph 10 above, the occupation of the proposed 7 bed HMO as opposed to the approved six bed HMO is unlikely to result in a material increase in noise and associated disturbance.

The window to the second floor room that would be allocated for the proposed seventh HMO occupier would provide views over part of the rear garden to No.8 and towards the rear garden of [address]. [name] note that this room was shown as being vacant on the approved drawings, this would not prevent it from being used by the occupiers of one or more of the approved HMO rooms, or the owner/manager of the approved HMO. Accordingly, the use of this room for a bedroom would not result in a material loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.

The amount of refuse likely to be generated by seven person HMO is likely to be considerably more than the occupiers of the original three bedroom dwelling. However, it is unlikely to be materially more than a six person HMO. As suggested by the council the additional bin storage could be accommodated in a dedicated enclosure to minimise its visual impact. This is a matter that could be dealt with by condition. The proposed cycle store would have sufficient space to accommodate at least seven cycles and other domestic paraphernalia.

A parking stress survey was submitted with the appeal application which concluded that the surrounding roads had capacity to absorb the additional parking demands likely to be generated by the proposal. In light of this the council has raised no concerns and I have no reason to come to a different view. Matters relating to fire safety could be dealt with under other legislation.

For these reasons, although the proposal could potentially result in a modest incremental increase in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties, when compared to the approved 6 person HMO, it would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal.

In addition to the conditions referred to elsewhere in this decision, the council has suggested the imposition of a condition relating to the provision of a dry storage area for cycles. This condition is necessary to facilitate and promote sustainable travel. The council has also suggested the imposition of conditions requiring adherence to the submitted plans and documents and that the external materials used in the construction of the proposed roof extension and the fabric of the building match those of the host building. [name] was unable to ascertain whether the recent works undertaken on the property comply with the approved/proposed schemes these conditions are both necessary. This is in the interests of certainty and to ensure the external works blend in satisfactorily with the host building.

Having regard to the conclusions on the main issue and all other matters raised the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following application plans, drawings and documents hereby approved: EX-L001 ([name]), EX-P001 ([name]), EX-P002 ([name]), EX-P003 ([name]), EX-P004 ([name]), EXE001 ([name]), EX-E002 ([name]), EX-S001 ([name]), EX-L002 ([name]), EX-PE001 ([name]), PRL001 ([name]), PR-P001 ([name]), PR-P002 ([name]), PR-P003 ([name]), PR- P004 ([name]), PR-E001([name]), PR-E002 ([name]), PR-S001 ([name]), PR-L002 ([name]), PR-PE001 ([name]), [name] dated 23/09/2025, [name], Design & [name] & Noise Impact Assessment (dated 4/2/2026).

The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric of the building shall be finished to match the adjacent work unless otherwise stated on the approved drawings and retained for the lifetime of the development.

a. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, details of secure and dry cycle storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. b. The storage and recycling facilities shall in all respects be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development and maintained thereafter.

a. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, full details of refuse storage units so as to store five (5) x 240L refuse and recycling bins shall be provided to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning authority. Details should include location, plan and elevation drawings of the storage, as well as the proposed materiality of the bin storage units. b. The storage and recycling facilities shall in all respects be constructed prior to the occupation of the development herby approved and in accordance with the approval details and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

No more than seven (7) persons shall be resident at the property at any one time

Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015(or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no extensions or alterations to the buildings hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority

a) Prior to the first occupation of the HMO hereby permitted, an Operational Management Plan shall be provided to, and approved in writing by, the Local Authority. Details shall include, but shall not be limited to: • Details as to how the property will be managed in order to minimise the impact on the residential amenity of adjoining owner/occupiers • Details of a 24-hour emergency telephone number to be utilised by residents of neighbouring properties should any concerns from noise nuisance or other nuisance arise • Details of proposed regular inspections to the HMO use and commitments for the logging of the results of such inspections B) The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and continued as such for the lifetime of the development.

Details of a sound insulation scheme between all units (floor to floor and to separating walls) and between the walls of adjoining properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the approved HMO. ***End of Schedule***