Appeal 6005425

The appeal is dismissed.

I understand that development has already taken place in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The main parties are of the view that, if the appeal were to be allowed, a condition could be attached limiting occupation to a maximum of 8 occupants. [name] note the intentions of such a condition, given the size of the bedrooms as detailed in the evidence before me, I find that it would be difficult and impractical to enforce long-term restriction to primarily single occupancy within the bedrooms. It is therefore my view that such a condition would not meet the tests outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The main issues are: • whether the development is an appropriate type and form of housing for the area; and, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy LP5 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan) outlines that the Council will aim to secure a range of homes, with a particular focus on the provision of larger family sized homes (three bedrooms and more). The Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2023 update) identifies a significant need for larger homes, with 76% across all tenures requiring homes of three bedrooms or more.

Policy LP26 of the Local Plan relates to promoting high quality design. The policy states, amongst other matters, that development of poor design, that does not take available opportunities to improve an area’s character and quality, and the way it functions, will be refused planning permission.

Given the lack of external alteration proposed, the property would continue to be interpreted as a residential dwelling within the street scene. However, through its conversion, it holds a materially different function, no longer contributing towards the Council’s stock of specifically required larger sized dwellings.

Policy LP6 of the Local Plan sets out that the Council will support the conversion of larger houses into buildings in multiple residential occupation, subject to developments meeting several criteria. One of the relevant criteria is that conversions should be in a Metropolitan, District or Local Centre. The intention of this element of the policy is partially to ensure that conversions are appropriately sited in areas with good access to local shops, services and public transport.

The appeal site is outside of [name], in an area with a public transport accessibility rating (PTAL) of 1b (with 1 being the lowest score, and 6 being the highest score in regard to provision of public transport), indicating a poor accessibility to public transport. Whilst the appeal site is within an established residential area, the development represents an intensified type of housing when compared to a single residential unit. The evidence before me includes very little detail of nearby services and facilities which are readily accessible to occupiers.

Based on the above, I find that the development is not an appropriate type and form of housing for the area. It has resulted in the loss of a larger sized dwelling contrary to the intentions of Policy LP5 of the Local Plan. Moreover, the location of the appeal site outside of a defined centre, would fail to meet criterion 1(a) of Policy LP6 of the Local Plan. I have also identified conflict with Policy LP26 of the Local Plan, noting that the conversion to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) does not improve the way that the area functions.

Criterion 1(c) of Policy LP6 of the Local Plan requires in part for no significant loss of amenity to occur to the area as a result of increased noise and general disturbance. Policy LP26 of the Local Plan requires development to not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including in relation to noise. Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) also requires development to avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life.

Unlike a single dwelling house, the occupation of the appeal site as a large HMO means that the building is occupied by several potentially unrelated individuals, with separate routines and movements. Whilst occupation by unrelated individuals does not automatically equate to planning harm, it does indicate that the level of activity associated with the site is highly likely to be materially increased when compared to a single dwelling, not solely by movements of the occupiers but also by any associated visitors or deliveries, again unlikely to be related or combined between the occupiers.

The use as a large HMO is a marked and intensified use of the appeal site which I do not find to be comparable to a large family household. The appellant has set out the personal circumstances of some of the current occupiers, outlining their requirement for a quiet residential environment. It is stated that the use as a large HMO has been ongoing for many years without complaint, a point which the Council has not specifically disputed.

However, I must assess the development as its intended use, acknowledging that if planning permission is granted for a large HMO, then it would not be possible to control potential future occupiers, who may not share the same behaviours, or desire for a quiet residential environment as those who currently reside within the property. I therefore do not find that a lack of complaint to date, amounts to a significant material consideration in favour of allowing the appeal.

Even with management practises in place, I find that the use of the appeal site as a large HMO in this location represents an unacceptable increase in comings and goings to the site. The intensified use of the site therefore creates material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in respect to noise and disturbance. This is in direct conflict with Policies LP6 and LP26 of the Local Plan as well as Policy D14 of the LP.

The Council’s reason for refusal in relation to this main issue also refers to Policy LP5 of the Local Plan. However, I find this policy to be of limited relevance in the consideration of impacts on neighbouring occupiers living conditions.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence for the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this further.

The development meets HMO standards, does not propose external alterations, and no objections have been raised in relation to the impact on the highway network, a submitted parking survey demonstrating capacity within the area for on street parking. Nevertheless, these are not factors which specifically weigh in favour of the appeal.

I have found that the appeal scheme would adversely affect the stock of larger sized dwellings contrary to the intentions of Policy LP5 of the Local Plan and would create material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in respect to noise and disturbance. This is in direct conflict with Policies LP6 and LP26 of the Local Plan as well as Policy D14 of the LP. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it has failed to satisfy the [name] with housing completions at 39% of its target. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. In this case, this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including making effective use of land in meeting the identified need for different types of housing.

On one hand, the scheme provides a HMO that arguably results in a more intensive use of the property and effective use of land. This contributes to the mix of housing within the area and aligns with policies within the Framework which seek to significantly boost the supply and variety of homes. There are also economic benefits through occupiers contributing to the local economy.

However, the appeal site was already in residential use. Therefore, the development does not add in numerical terms to the quantum of the housing stock as it has not resulted in the creation of a new dwelling. Moreover, given the scale of the development, any associated social, economic or environmental benefits are relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position. Therefore, the weight attached to these benefits overall is limited.

On the other hand, I have identified harm in relation to the type and form of housing in the area, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects both a high standard of amenity to be achieved for existing users and the delivery of homes that meet an area’s identified housing needs, including the needs of different groups in the community such as families with children. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

As such, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

I conclude that the development is not in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.