Appeal 6005458

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal has been amended in the banner heading above to omit the words ‘part retrospective’, as it is not a description of development.

I saw during my site visit that [site address] is occupied as a 6-bed House in [name] (HMO) and a rear dormer window and single storey rear extension have been constructed. It was not wholly consistent with the details shown on the plans before me and whilst my observations have helped to inform my assessment, I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

It is suggested that the rear dormer window and rear single storey extension would comply with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO). It is not for me, under a Section 78 appeal, to determine whether the dormer window would comply with the GPDO.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the provision of internal communal space; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of parking.

[site address] is a mid-terrace property that has 3 bedrooms to the ground floor, 2 bedrooms to the first floor and a further bedroom within the roof space. Each room has a small kitchenette feature that includes a sink and storage but not full cooking and food preparation facilities.

The ground floor shared kitchen is the only internal communal space available to the occupants. It contains washing machines, ovens, hobs, sinks and cupboards along one side of this narrow room. There is no dining area and due to the limited width of the room and the positioning of the doors, future provision within this space is not realistic. Consequently, other than to prepare and cook food, it is unlikely that residents would linger in this space.

As a result, occupants would eat meals and spend a significant amount of time within their respective bedrooms. Moreover, as the bedrooms are single person occupancy, the absence of suitable internal communal space would restrict opportunities for socialising with other residents, leading to the potential for an unhealthy lack of social interaction.

Although the HMO DPD Policy HMO4 c) refers to the Council’s HMO licensing standards, this is in relation to the configuration of internal sleeping accommodation. I have considered the presented extract from these standards and the minimum size of a kitchen based on the number of residents. However, this element of the standards does not form part of relevant Development Plan Policy and has not swayed me away from my conclusions.

For these reasons, the proposed development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to the provision of internal communal space. This is contrary to Policy H11 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan December 2017 (CLP) and Policy HM04 of the HMO Development Plan Document ([name]). These resist, amongst other things, proposal that would materially harm the amenity value and living standards of future occupants, including having specific regard to internal space, as well as the suitability of the premises for the number of households to be accommodated.

No on-site parking spaces are provided at No. 47 and, like many of the properties in the locality, it is reliant upon on-street parking. With 6 households residing at the property, there would be the potential for a greater demand for on-street parking compared to its previous use as a single dwelling, which would reduce available on-street space and increase parking pressure. According to the Council’s parking standards contained in Appendix 5 of the CLP, the proposed development increases the parking provision at the site from 2 to 5 spaces.

Contained within the appellant’s [name] (TN), are the results of a parking survey, which concluded that within 200m of the site 47% and 40% of on-street parking spaces were available in the morning and evening respectively. However, it was not undertaken in accordance with the Council’s ‘[name] for Residential Development’ (PBSS), which adds to the policy requirements contained within the CLP by detailing the parking assessment methodology required to support a proposal.

Whilst the PBSS indicates that the length of each parking space is 6m, the TN has based its results on a length of 5m. As these parking spaces are parallel to the kerb, 6m is a more reasonable dimension to accommodate manoeuvring in and out of such spaces. Therefore, using 5m long parking spaces would give an unrealistic and higher figure in terms of the number of spaces than actually exist within 200m from the site as well as the number of spaces that were free.

Moreover, the PBSS indicates that surveys should be undertaken at times when the highest number of residents are at home and identifies the need for at least one weekday night between the hours of 0030 and 0530, as well as one weekend night during the same hours. However, the TN’s parking survey was undertaken on a single weekday at the hours of 0700 and 2100. Consequently, it would not have accurately captured the availability of on-street parking at the time when the highest number of residents were at home.

Therefore, in the absence of a parking survey in accordance with the PBSS, I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the proposed development would not represent a hazard to highway users by reason of an increase in parking pressure.

I note that the appeal scheme is being promoted as a car-free development and is located in an established residential area with good access to services and facilities. Although all residents may not own a car, as the site does not fall within a [name], there is no method of implementing the proposal as a car-free development.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of parking, which conflicts with [name] H11 and AC3, and HMO DPD Policy HM01. These include the requirement for proposals to be assessed on the basis of the parking standards set out in [name] 5, provide suitable parking provision and have no demonstrable adverse impact on highway safety.

I recognise that the proposal offers water and energy efficiency measures. However, these benefits are outweighed by the harm to living conditions and highway safety.

A lack of harm or policy compliance in respect of flood risk and ecology would have a neutral effect which would weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations put forward in support do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.