Appeal 6005387

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use from a 6 bedroom HMO (Class C4) to 8 bed HMO ([name]) with associated external works at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2071/01/DET, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

A costs application has been received from Vnoutchkov Group against [site address] City Council. This is considered in a separate decision.

The appeal site is referred to as a 6 bedroom House in [name] (HMO). However, objections from local residents state that the property has never actually been used as such and is in fact a C3 dwellinghouse. Nonetheless, as the appeal site lies outside of the Council’s Article 4 direction, this would be a change that would not require a planning application, as evidenced by the Certificate of Lawful Development1 issued by the Council. I have based my decision on the description of development shown on the application form and in the banner heading above.

The effect of the proposal on the sustainability of the local community and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. 1 Ref 2025/1794/01/LDC.

Policy CS9 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle (2015) (CSUCP) seeks to ensure existing communities are sustainable places of quality and choice, through, in part, maintaining a range of housing types and sizes throughout the area, preventing the loss of family homes through sub-division, change of use or redevelopment and preventing an over concentration of shared accommodation. The policy justification sets out that shared accommodation (including HMOs) forms a very significant and valuable part of the private rented sector and provides market housing to meet the needs of a variety of people. Nonetheless, the justification sets out that high concentrations of shared accommodation can create problems in terms of environmental quality and amenity. and that in such areas the Council will remove Permitted Development Rights through an Article 4 Direction.

The Maintaining Sustainable Communities Supplementary Planning Document (2017) (SPD) aims to manage the growth in HMOs in areas that have already experienced high levels of this form of accommodation. The SPD sets out that the impacts on communities of high concentrations of HMOs and temporary accommodation can include, amongst other things, anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance, increased crime and fear of crime and negative impacts on the physical environment and streetscape.

The appeal property lies within a row of terraced properties that are set back behind small front gardens. There is limited off street parking with the majority of parking taking place along the road to both sides of [address]. The area is residential in character, albeit located just off the relatively busy [address], a main route leading to the city centre that includes more commercial development.

It was apparent on my site visit and from the content of the comments from local residents that many of the houses here are family homes. Numerous objections also highlight the prevalence of multi-generational occupancy, the sense of community within the street and cultural and social connections along the street and across the neighbourhood.

The Council states that there is just one registered HMO along [address], which comprises around 80 properties. However, local residents highlight between 4 and 8 other houses that function similarly to HMOs which are operated by the Council or charities. Neither the Council nor the appellant has commented on the presence of these other units, however I accept that other forms of shared accommodation also have potential to alter the residential character of areas. Nonetheless, on the site visit I saw that most properties were in good condition and well-maintained. I saw no evidence of the negative impacts on the physical environment or streetscape that the SPD guidance states is indicative of a high concentration of HMOs.

The appeal site lies outside of an Article 4 area. Policy SC1 of the SPD sets out that in such areas, planning permission for the erection, conversion, extension or alteration of properties to HMOs (Class C4 or sui generis) will be granted unless, amongst other things, there would be harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents through the introduction of additional activity, access, traffic or parking at the property which would cause an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance.

As set out above, the evidence available to me indicates that there are reasonably low numbers of this form of accommodation along [address]. Taking into account the properties referred to by local residents, this would amount to a maximum of around 11% of properties in some form of shared use, including the appeal property. I also note that Elswick is not a ward identified within the SPD as exhibiting particularly high levels of this type of accommodation. For these reasons, the evidence in this case leads me to conclude that an additional 2 HMO bedrooms here would not lead to an overconcentration of HMO accommodation that would adversely affect the existing residential character. Similarly, the existing sense of community that is valued by local residents would likely be preserved.

As set out above, SPD Policy SC1 sets out that planning permission for sui generis HMOs will be granted unless harm is identified. It does not preclude such a change, and it does not indicate that HMOs with 7 or 8 bedrooms inevitably result in an unacceptable impact with regard to noise and disturbance. National legislation distinguishes small HMOs (C4) from larger HMOs (sui generis) because of their more significant effects, and, in that regard, I acknowledge that the proposed additional 2 bedrooms would result in a marginally greater level of activity than the existing 6 bedrooms.

However, I am not provided with any convincing site-specific evidence as to why the additional 2 bedrooms, in particular, would result in a ‘significant change in character and intensity’ at this location. On the basis of what is before me, I am of the view that the change would be small and unlikely to be discernible within a street perspective, mindful of the existing proportion of shared accommodation. As such, I am satisfied that an additional 2 HMO bedrooms could be accommodated without significantly altering the residential character. For the same reasons I am not convinced that the proposed additional 2 bedrooms would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, as set out in Policy SC1. The Council cites the comments received from local residents, however, these predominantly highlight concerns with the prospect of a HMO, rather than identifying existing problems with this form of accommodation that could be exacerbated through the appeal proposal.

For the above reasons the proposal would not undermine the balance or sustainability of the local community and would preserve the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Mindful of the need to ensure communities are sustainable places of quality and choice, the proposal would contribute towards maintaining a range of housing types and sizes throughout the area and on this basis would comply with Policy CS9 of the CSUCP.

The proposal would also comply with Policy CS14 of the CSUCP, Policy DM23 of the Newcastle Development and Allocations Plan (2020) (DAP) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which together, and in summary, seek to preserve the living conditions of existing occupiers, including in relation to noise and disturbance. There would similarly be no conflict with the guidance contained within the SPD, set out above.

The existing and proposed plans show no change to hardsurfacing in the front yard with planting proposed to the rear. Any unauthorised tree felling or provision of hardsurfacing would be a matter for the Council and not for this appeal.

Whilst not forming part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, local residents raise concern that the proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems. However, the site is well served by public transport, car ownership is low in the vicinity and I am therefore satisfied that parking demand generated by two additional residents would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I note the Council concluded similarly.

The conditions imposed are based on those proposed by the Council. Where necessary I have amended the wording of these in the interests of precision and clarity, and to comply with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard timeframe condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans for certainty. For the same reason, a condition is necessary to ensure that the HMO is occupied by no greater than 8 residents at any one time. In accordance with Policy DM12 of the DAP a condition is necessary to ensure that adequate cycle storage is provided following agreement of details. I have not imposed the Highway Authority’s suggested condition prohibiting the storage of refuse outside of the property as the approved plans make adequate provision for the storage of refuse.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions below.

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 drawing nos: 107000 [name]; 107002 [name]; 107004; 107105 [name]; 107106 [name]; 107107 [name]; 107108 [name]; 107209; 107210; 107211.

The development shall not be brought into use until details of cycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle parking shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. Thereafter, the cycle parking shall be retained in accordance with the approved details and shall be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

[address] in [name] hereby approved shall not be occupied by more than eight residents at any time.