Appeal 6005223

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing 6-bed HMO to 7-bed HMO (sui generis) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01321/COU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

No more than 7 residents shall occupy the House in [name] (HMO) hereby permitted at any one time.

The development shall be operated at all times in full accordance with the Management Plan (document no. DC02) hereby permitted including the neighbour complaint procedure. No variation to the approved Management Plan shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be operated in full accordance with the approved Management Plan for the lifetime of the use.

The refuse bins shall be stored at all times in the designated refuse storage area as shown on the approved plan no. A501.

The Council’s decision notice did not express explicit concern regarding the living conditions of the future occupants of the property becoming a seven person House in [name] (HMO). However, the [name] did express issues regarding a lack of shared living facilities. This was not addressed in the appellant’s statement. I have, therefore, regarded this as a main issue in my consideration of the appeal. As the appeal is to be allowed, it has not been necessary for me to seek further comments on this.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character of the area and effect on the living conditions of the existing and future occupants and those of neighbouring properties.

The appeal site is presently used as a six bedroom HMO with accommodation arranged over three floors. Presently, each floor provides two bedrooms per floor with all bedrooms having their own en-suite bathrooms and the majority featuring small kitchenettes to each room. One shared communal kitchen area is provided on the ground floor. A shared study, or games room, is available on the first floor and it is this room which is proposed to be converted to the seventh bedroom.

The property is set along a residential street made up of terraced houses which directly address the road. Based on the evidence provided by both parties it is agreed that there are a number of other homes along [address] which have been converted to HMOs. Whether these are in Use Class C4 or are larger HMOs is not clear from the evidence, but even so, there is no indication that there is a predominance of these in the local area. Owing to the terraced nature of the homes, their intimate relationship with the street and proximity to the town centre and other commercial and institutional uses in the area; the areas character is an active one.

The property is already operating as an HMO and without any evidence of demonstrable harms to the amenity of the area. The area is diverse and busy in nature, as is to be expected from a tightly knit urban environment close to the town centre. The increase in the number of occupants by one person would be very slight in this particular context.

I have considered the example provided by the Council in relation to a recent decision at 6 Masters Close1 (although the full decision was not provided in evidence). It has been highlighted that [address] is a residential environment predominantly comprising terraced dwellings in single-family occupation, limited spacing between properties, and an absence of off-street parking. However, there is a difference between these two sites as I am unable to agree that [address] and its surroundings are low-intensity and solely residential in character. Indeed, my findings are quite to the contrary. The area is active and diverse and, unlike [address], it is close to the town centre of Luton and near local shops and services. It is for these reasons that the area can accommodate one additional person in this proposed HMO as the additional population could be easily absorbed into this dynamic environment.

It is for similar reasons that I am unable to find that the proposal would be harmful to neighbours living conditions. This, again, is due to the surrounding environment and nature of uses in the vicinity. Indeed, the use of this property as a seven person HMO would not differ greatly from its use as a family dwelling. Seven persons occupying the property as a single dwellinghouse would perhaps be on the higher range of expected number of occupants. Nevertheless, it would be quite feasible for it to be occupied in this manner. There is no reason to expect that the occupants of the larger HMO would generate additional noise, disturbance and activity than that of a single family dwelling. This would certainly not be to an extent where the living conditions of neighbours would be unduly impaired.

Turning to the living conditions of the occupants, I note that there is only one communal area in the proposed seven person HMO. This would be the kitchen on the ground floor. Whilst this is a relatively limited provision, it is off-set by 1 APP/B0230/W/25/3375851 kitchenettes being provided to all but one of the rooms. These kitchenettes would not be sufficient in their own right, as bed-sits, but would alleviate some pressure on the use of the shared kitchen. I further note that all rooms have en-suite bathroom provision. Moreover, no objections to the standard of accommodation were expressed by the Council’s Neighbourhood Services Team.

The kitchen is of a modest size for the number of occupants and there would be no communal dining or seating area. However, my attention has not been drawn to any policy or other requirement for minimum size standards on these facilities. Therefore, this leads me to the conclusion that the provision of communal facilities, although constrained, would be satisfactory.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would comply with policies LLP1, LLP17 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the area and the accommodation units conform with amenity standards.

I have imposed the conditions suggested by the Council with edits and modifications. This is having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Framework.

The Council did not suggest a time limit condition; however, the proposal is not retrospective. [name] have imposed the standard condition for the development to be commenced within three years to accord with the provisions of the Act.

I have imposed the suggested condition relating to restricting occupancy to no more than seven individuals. This is in the interests of the living conditions of the occupants and neighbouring residents.

A condition is imposed to ensure that the development is operated in accordance with the management plan and to ensure that refuse storage is contained to the defined area. These conditions are also imposed having regard to the living conditions of the occupants and neighbours.

I have not imposed the Council’s suggested condition relating to external alterations to the building as this condition is seeking to remove permitted development rights. However, no permitted development rights exist for this proposed sui generis use. Thus, this condition is not necessary and would be contrary to PPG advice.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.