Appeal 6005284

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the increase of a 6 occupant HMO to a 8 occupant HMO ([name]) including loft conversion and single storey rear extension at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2025/5272/FULL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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. 101 Rev 2 Site Plans, 103 Rev 2 [name] – Proposed, 201 Rev 1 Elevations and 400 Rev 2 Section A.

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing property.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied by more than eight persons at any one time.

The hereby approved extensions shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for bicycle storage as shown on drawing no. 103 Rev

The bicycle parking facility shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for the storage of bicycles.

The hereby approved extensions shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for refuse storage. The refuse storage facility shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for this purpose.

No sleeping accommodation shall be provided on the lower ground floor of the property.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more accurate manner than that on the Application Form. The change relates only to the use of the term HMO instead of HiMO, because this is the more commonly used terminology for a House in [name].

The scheme includes a loft conversion involving roof lights to the front and a rear dormer window. There is no disagreement between the main parties over the acceptability of the physical impact of these elements of the scheme. I find no reason to conclude otherwise. On that basis my assessment will focus on any impacts arising from the increase in the number of occupants and the single storey rear extension.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of No [address] with regards to outlook and light and No 43 and 47 in relation to noise and disturbance.

[address] and the surrounding streets are characterised by two-storey terraced dwellings which sit on modest plots. Properties on [address] have no front gardens. The appeal property, No [site address] is a mid-terraced property with a two-storey projecting bay on the front elevation and the brickwork is painted cream. The property is typical of those within the street in terms of external appearance and is currently in use as a six bedroom HMO.

The appeal scheme would increase the number of bedrooms to eight. Taking into account the exiting use, the proposal would not affect the concentration of HMO’s locally but would result in two additional occupiers within the property. It is accepted that there would be an increase in the number of comings and goings as the additional occupiers go about their daily lives. This could include two-way trips for work and leisure purposes and an increased number of visitors and deliveries. However, given that there are already six occupiers, this minor increase in movements would not be discernible within this residential street. Furthermore, there would be no changes to the appearance of the property that would distinguish it from a residential use or which would be out of character with the area. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with Principle 1 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (November 2019) as it creates, supports and maintains a balanced, mixed and inclusive community protecting the neighbourhood and streetscene character.

In conclusion I find that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policies H1 and H5 of the [name] (December 2014) (WNJCS) and Policies Q1 and HO3 of the Northampton Local Plan (NLP) Part 2 2011-2029 (March 2023). Amongst other matters, these policies require developments to have regard to the character and appearance of the area, contribute to good placemaking through high quality design and only allow HMOs where they would not adversely affect the character and amenity of existing residential areas.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace and consequently the occupiers of No 43 and No [address] proximity. The proposed alterations would result in the creation two additional bedrooms and larger communal areas within the property. The two additional bedrooms are located within the loft. Given that loft spaces of the adjoining properties have not been converted these additional bedrooms do not directly adjoin habitable rooms within either neighbouring property. Even if the adjoining loft spaces were in use, the relationship would be no different to other parts of terraced dwellings where habitable rooms are found either side of a party wall. Consequently, no discernible noise impacts would arise from these new bedrooms.

As accepted above, there would be additional comings and goings associated with two additional occupiers. However, given the existing use as a six bedroom HMO, it is not considered that this minor increase in the number of occupiers would discernibly increase levels of noise and disturbance for occupiers of the directly adjoining properties.

The scheme proposes a single storey rear extension adjacent to the boundary with No. [address]. The extension would be in close proximity to the dining room of the adjacent property which is served by a single large window. There is currently built form along the full extent of the side boundary adjacent to No. 43 due to the presence of an existing single storey rear extension, covered cycle store and shed.

The appeal proposals require the demolition of the existing rear extension. Whilst the replacement extension does have a slightly greater depth and height, the modest increases would not notably alter the outlook experienced, especially given the existing context of built form along the full extent of this side boundary. As the outlook from No 43 would not fundamentally change the appeal proposal would not appear unduly overbearing for the occupiers of No 43. Furthermore, given the minimal change there would be no noticeable loss of light and no discernible change in levels of overshadowing. The rear extension reflects the guidance within paragraph 7.7 of the [name] and [name] (December 2011) as it is neither poorly designed or overly large and consequently has no undue impact on the adjoining occupiers. I am satisfied that the extension retains the high standard of amenity as stipulated by paragraph 135f of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In conclusion the proposal would maintain the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 43 and 47. The proposal therefore accords with Policies H1 and H5 of the WNJCS and Policies Q1 and Q2 of the [name] 2 2011-2029. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to have regard to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties ensuring that developments are not overbearing and an acceptable outlook is provided. The Council’s Decision Notice also referenced Policy S10 of the of the WNJCS however as this policy addresses sustainability matters it is not considered to be relevant to the issue of living conditions.

The appeal proposal has been compared to a small hotel due to the inclusion of seven toilet/shower rooms. However, a high proportion of ensuite rooms is reflective of a higher quality of accommodation for the future occupiers of the HMO rather than any alternative use. There is no evidence within the appeal submissions to suggest an alternative use is proposed. Furthermore, given that the proposal falls outside of any defined use class (sui generis) any future change of use would require consent from the local planning authority.

The Council considers that the property is too small for the number of occupiers proposed, however it is the extensions to the property rather than the subdivision of existing rooms that have created the space for additional occupants. Furthermore, the property has a well-proportioned communal lounge, kitchen and dining room.

Concerns have been raised over the impact on parking provision and highway safety including whether emergency vehicles would be able to pass. The appeal site is in a sustainable location within the town of Northampton with good access to public transport meaning that occupiers would not be reliant on car use for access to local services and facilities. Any increase in parking demand arising from two additional occupiers would be low and consequently there would be no impact on highway safety. Specific reference has been made to the refusal of a planning application for a HMO in nearby Grange Park on parking grounds. However, I do not have full details of this case and therefore cannot place any meaningful weight on this decision by the Council.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to refuse storage, street litter, anti-social behaviour and water and power infrastructure. There is no evidence to suggest that two additional occupiers would materially alter levels of anti-social behaviour or result in an increased amount of litter within the street. A condition will be utilised to ensure waste storage provision is provided. It is noted that there has been no objection from [name]. There is also no evidence to suggest that two additional occupiers would noticeably impact on local infrastructure.

Concerns have been raised over how the appeal property has been managed historically. However, any consent runs with the land and consequently the planning system cannot control who operates the HMO premises. Any issues arising from how any future landlord operates the HMO would be a matter for the relevant regulatory department at the Council.

It has suggested that the proposal would amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The physical extensions are limited to a loft conversion and a single storey rear extension which when combined are not significant in size and no greater in size than extensions found on similar properties in the wider area.

It has been bought to my attention that the appellant operates a number of HMO properties in the locality and a planning application has been submitted to extend another of the appellant’s properties. Concerns have been raised that allowing this appeal scheme would encourage the appellant to submit further applications on other properties and make it more difficult for the Council to refuse any such applications. However, any future applications would be assessed on their own individual planning merits.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the submission of external materials has been suggested by the Council. However, I consider this to be unnecessary. A matching materials condition will be sufficient to ensure that the proposal maintains the character and appearance of the area.

To maintain an acceptable living environment, conditions are required to limit the number of occupiers to eight, ensure bin storage is provided and prevent the use of the lower ground floor as a bedroom.

To encourage the use of sustainable travel modes a condition requiring cycle storage provision is needed. It has been suggested that a single condition could be utilised to cover refuse storage and cycle storage however as refuse storage is not shown on the approved layout plan this has been split into separate conditions.

Conditions have been suggested by the Police that require the use of windows and a cycle storage facility that achieve the requirements of a 3rd party accredited security standard. This is considered unreasonable and is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.