Appeal 6005502

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on [address]. The property comprises four bedrooms and benefits from parking to the front of the site and a garden to the rear. Surrounding development includes mainly residential dwellings of a similar size and style.

The Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (RLP) defines family sized housing as a property with three or more bedrooms. The property is therefore considered to be family housing. Policy LP5 of the RLP seeks to ensure that the Borough’s housing stock provides for a range of housing needs and sizes, with a focus on the provision and protection of larger, family-sized homes that are of 3 bedrooms or more. The Havering and Redbridge Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (2023) (LHNA) also identifies a significant need for homes of 3-bedrooms or more, accounting for 68.2% of the total market housing need in the Borough.

Whilst the property would remain in residential use and the scheme would diversify the local housing mix, the proposed change of use from a dwellinghouse to a small house in multiple occupancy (HMO) would result in the loss of a family home, for which there a need.

I recognise the role HMO’s play in contributing to overall housing choice. However, limited evidence has been provided to support the appellant’s assertion that there is an identified need for such accommodation. To the contrary, the Council’s evidence demonstrates a significant need for 3 bed plus dwellings and a low need for 1-bedroom units akin to the size of units which would be created by the appeal scheme.

Whilst the surrounding area may be characterised by a mix of housing types and tenures, this does not outweigh the need to protect family homes. Additionally, the cumulative impact of such incremental changes, if allowed, would have significant effects and would undermine the Council’s development plan policies in terms of ensuring the provision and protection of family homes across the Council area.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would result in the unacceptable loss of a family-sized dwelling and thus would have a detrimental effect on the supply of such housing within the Borough. This is contrary to Policy LP5 of the RLP insofar as it promotes the provision of larger family-sized homes to meet the housing needs of the Borough. While the Council has referred to Policy LP26 of the RLP, as this relates to matters of design quality it has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two approved planning applications for the change of use from single dwellings to HMO’s, one of which is located at 13 Princes Road1. In this regard, they state that the Council applies planning policy inconsistently. [name] accept that the case officer reports for these applications do not appear to reference the loss of a family dwelling, this does not justify approving development which is contrary to policy. In any case, rather than providing justification for the development in question, if anything, this points to a need for such proposals to be carefully considered in order to protect family housing.

The Council’s case officer report outlines how there is no section drawing to demonstrate that the rooms meet the minimum internal height requirements. This however is not referenced in a refusal reason. [name] am dismissing the appeal, I have not considered this matter further.

The appeal property is not listed, and the site is not situated within a conservation area. The scheme may provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, adequate cycle storage and remain in keeping with surrounding development. It may comply with other HMO criteria set out in a supplementary planning document and various other development plan policies. These are however considered neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

I have found that the appeal scheme would adversely affect the supply of family-sized housing in the Borough, contrary to the RLP. 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 is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (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. 1 Reference: 2939/23

On one hand, the scheme would provide a HMO that could accommodate up to six occupants, arguably resulting in a more efficient use of land in a sustainable location with access to services and facilities. This would contribute to the mix of housing within the area and align with policies within the Framework which seek to significantly boost the supply and variety of homes.

However, the appeal site is already in residential use. Therefore, the proposal would not add in numerical terms to the quantum of the housing stock as it would not result in the creation of a new dwelling. Moreover, given the scale of the development, any associated social, economic or environmental benefits would be 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, the development would result in the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse which would fail to meet the prioritised housing needs for the Borough. This is contrary to the Framework, which expects 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.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.