Appeal 6005230

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a dwelling (Class C3) to a HMO (Class C4) together with the installation of a rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21060/25, and subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans referenced: Location Plan (dated 17-Sep-2025) 18WS/299/PL – Site Location Plan and Existing Site Plan 18WS/300/PL – Proposed Site Plan 18WS/301/PL – Existing Plan Layouts 18WS/302/PL – [name] and Section 18WS/303/[name] C2 – Proposed Plan Layouts 18WS/302/[name] C1 – [name] and Section

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall be as detailed within the application and the approved plans.

There shall be no more than 5 bedrooms at the property at any time.

An application for costs has been made by [name] of [name]? Property Holdings Ltd against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is whether the development would be an over-intensive use and, to this end, the effect of the development on the living conditions of future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of living space.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, mid terraced dwelling which is located within a predominantly residential area. The dwelling has two bedrooms and a small box room, along with floorspace within its attic. A garage is located to the rear which is accessed off [address]. The garage occupies much of the rear yard with a narrow L-shaped external area providing a small external living space for the household.

The level of existing accommodation is modest, both internally and externally, although the dwelling could be occupied by a family. The appeal proposes the change of use to a 5-bedroom HMO. One bedroom would be provided on the ground floor along with a kitchen/dining area, and a communal lounge. Three bedrooms would be provided on the first floor, and one bedroom would be provided within the roof space. This would be facilitated by a rear roof dormer extension. All bedrooms would be en-suite.

The Council’s principal concern is that the proposal would amount to an over-intensive use of the property given the level of space available. The scheme includes a rear dormer to facilitate five bedrooms. It is likely that up to five adults living independently would generate a greater frequency of comings and goings than a typical family household. I therefore accept that the use would be more intensive than the existing three-bedroom dwelling. However, the pattern of activity would not be fundamentally different from that associated with a family occupation, and greater intensity does not, in itself, amount to harm. Notably, the Council does not allege adverse effects on neighbouring living conditions, the character and appearance of the area, or highway safety.

Although the Council’s case focuses on external space, I have first considered the adequacy of the internal accommodation. Each bedroom would provide space for a bed, desk, storage and an en-suite, with sufficient circulation space remaining. The submitted evidence demonstrates that the room sizes would meet comparable minimum space standards1. All bedrooms would also benefit from a good level of natural light and outlook. The kitchen/dining area would comfortably accommodate the necessary appliances and dining provision for all occupants, and the proposed living room would provide adequate seating without appearing cramped. Accordingly, the internal accommodation would be suitable for the intended number of occupants and would not result in an over-intensive or poor living environment. 1 As set out in Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015)

Externally, the retained garage would continue to occupy much of the rear yard, leaving only a narrow and irregularly shaped area of outdoor space. This would limit the extent of private external amenity area available. However, I understand that there are no local standards specifying the level of external space required for an HMO of this scale. Despite its modest size, the remaining area would be sufficient to accommodate bin storage and allow for basic outdoor activities such as seating and clothes-drying to occur. Some usable external space would therefore be available.

I am also mindful that the existing dwelling could be occupied by a family, for whom a greater level of external amenity—such as play space or larger seating areas— would typically be desirable. The current property does not provide such provision, and the likely needs of five adults living independently would be less demanding. In this context, and in the absence of any clear policy requirement to the contrary, I am satisfied that the level of external space would be adequate for the proposed use.

For the above reasons, the development would not be an over-intensive use and would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of living space. Therefore, the development complies with Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024) and Policy CG4 of [name] (2011). These, amongst other things, require that development provides a high level of amenity.

I note the large number of representations which have been received. I acknowledge that the development would result in the loss of a family dwelling, and this would slightly alter the housing mix in the immediate area. However, there is no compelling evidence which would demonstrate that the proposals would have a negative effect on the overall availability of housing, or lead to an unacceptable concentration of similar uses in the area. Furthermore, the scheme is a form of accommodation which would contribute towards a mix of housing. There is also no cogent evidence which would indicate that the proposed use would have an unacceptable effect on local services.

I note the concerns with regard to highway safety and that the development would deliver a single parking space to serve the occupants. The Local Highways Authority were consulted on the scheme and were satisfied that any additional parking within the highway would have little detrimental impact on highway safety. Given the sustainable location of the site and the modest scale of the development, I see no reason to disagree with their conclusions on this matter.

In terms of the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, particular concerns have been raised with regard to noise and disturbance arising from the proposed use, along with the potential for overlooking.

As noted in the main issue, I agree that the development would be a more intensive use than existing. However, the scale of the development is unlikely to be so intensive to result in a level of activity which would be significantly different to the existing lawful use. The Council raise no concerns in this regard and they highlight that there are other controls and legislation to address noise and disturbance. Therefore, I have no reason to come to a different conclusion.

In terms of overlooking, the scheme includes a new dormer window within the roof space. This would have windows which would face directly over the rear yard of the appeal site, rather than directly towards the neighbours. While some views towards adjacent external living spaces may arise, this would not be a wholly uncommon relationship. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the application would result in adverse overlooking to neighbours.

I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development, and to require compliance with the submitted plans for certainty. A condition for the development to be carried out using the materials as detailed within the approved plans and the application is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the building and area. A condition which restricts the number of bedrooms within the building is necessary in the interest of the main issue. A more intensive use may also give rise to other matters relating to the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and on-street parking.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.