Appeal 6005550

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would provide future occupiers with satisfactory living conditions, having particular regard to the size of bedroom 5; • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for off-street car parking and the effect of any lack of provision on highway safety; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and living conditions of neighbouring residents, with respect to noise and general ;activity.

The appeal property would provide two floors of House in [name] (HMO) accommodation. The appeal plans show that it would have six bedrooms.

The Council refers to the [name] it Right Licensing Conditions, which are needed to obtain an HMO licence within the borough. These require a minimum single room size of [address] metres for a bedsit where shared kitchen facilities are provided in a separate room. The main parties agree that bedroom 5 would have an internal floor area of 7.[address] metres. As a result, it would not meet the internal standards referred to by the Council. Due to its very limited size, the room would be overly cramped and oppressive in nature, consequently harming the living conditions of any future occupiers of the room.

The nature of HMO living often involves occupiers sharing the property with other occupiers who they may not have a close relationship with. Occupiers are therefore likely to value the privacy of their rooms, which they may use for studying or working from home, and may choose to spend a lot of time in. Given the small size and cramped nature of the room, occupiers are unlikely to comfortably host guests within their rooms.

The appellant refers to alternative standards for minimum room sizes understood to be from The Licensing of Houses in [name] (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018, as well as standards relating to overcrowding in dwellings under the Housing Act 1985. In particular, I have been referred to a minimum sleeping room floor area of 6.[address] metres for a room containing one person over 10 years of age.

The size of bedroom 5 would meet these particular standards. However, the available evidence indicates that these standards ensure that HMOs meet the minimum standards of accommodation fit for human habitation relating to matters such as fire safety and access to basic facilities. The development plan has a wider role to play in ensuring that a good quality of accommodation is secured to provide a good standard of living conditions for future occupiers.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers. Therefore, in this respect, it would be contrary to Policy DP5 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) (BLP) which requires HMOs to provide an appropriate quality of accommodation.

It would also conflict with the aims of the Framework which, at paragraph 135 f) states that proposals should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appeal site is located within a Primary Residential Area and a Sustainable Development Location as designated by the BLP. The appeal site has an existing vehicle crossover providing access to an off-street parking area. Whilst the appellant suggests this could accommodate 3 cars, from my observations on site, I consider that it could accommodate 2 cars, albeit given the space constraints, independent access for both cars would not be possible.

The appellant indicates that the proposal would be a car-free development. Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) outlines that car-free development should be the starting point for proposals that are well-connected by public transport. However, the appeal site is within a location with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2, which indicates poor access to public transport. [name] note that there are available bus routes within walking distance, I am unclear how frequent the bus services are, or the hours that they operate. Consequently, there is a significant possibility that future occupiers would wish to have access to private vehicles. The appellant has not indicated any mechanism which would prevent future occupiers from doing so.

[name] have not been directed to specific car parking standards for HMOs the Council suggest that local census data indicates that the proposal would generate a demand of up to 5 vehicles for the property. In the absence of sufficient and suitable off-street parking space, this demand would need to be accommodated on the public highway.

In the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, it seems to me that the proposal would increase existing levels of parking stress locally. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the nearby bus stop and planning policy aims to reduce dependence on private vehicles. However, increased parking demand in instances of limited supply may lead to additional congestion as drivers seek parking space, or park illegally, which would be detrimental to highway safety. [name] note that the proposal would provide secure bicycle parking, there is little evidence to suggest that such circumstances could be avoided by the appeal proposal.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm highway safety with regard to the adequacy of the parking provision and the potential for the displacement of vehicles on to the public highway. I therefore find that it conflicts with Policies SP10 and DP24 of the BLP and Policy T4 of the LP. Amongst other aspects these policies require that particular attention be given to highway capacity, parking provision and safety.

The submitted drawings indicate that the appeal property is a three bedroom dwelling, likely to be occupied by four or more people. A family of this size would generate regular comings and goings, which would vary depending on the ages and circumstances of the occupiers.

The proposal would accommodate up to six persons in six bedrooms. My attention has been drawn to a recent appeal decision at [address], Bexley1 where an Inspector found that a six person HMO would increase the potential for disruptive noise events.

I acknowledge that the increase in residents who are not related may result in slightly increased activity compared to a family dwelling. However, it seems to me that activities such as travelling to and from work, and receiving visitors or deliveries would not be particularly disturbing to neighbouring residents. Given the limited increase in residents, I do not consider that there would be a harmful increase in noise from music, televisions or telephones. Given the relatively close relationship between dwellings within this suburban area, neighbouring occupiers can reasonably expect to experience some level of noise arising from the everyday activities of others. In this instance, the limited increase in activity would not, in itself, demonstrate that the proposed HMO use would result in material harm to neighbouring occupiers. 1 APP/D5120/W/25/3370712

The main parties agree that the proposal would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs within the area. The proposal would not result in significant external alterations to the appeal property which would be visible from the public highway. The Council are satisfied that there is sufficient space within the site to provide satisfactory levels of cycle, waste and recycling storage. Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed residential intensification would be unlikely to alter the character of the street.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not affect the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, with respect to noise and general activity. It would therefore accord with Policies DP1, DP5 and DP11 of the BLP and Policies D3 and D14 of the LP insofar as they seek to ensure that proposals respect and integrate with local character and ensure that proposals do not harm neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions.

I recognise that HMOs can provide a more affordable housing option in comparison to self-contained housing, whilst also contributing to meeting a range of housing needs. In this case, the appeal proposal would provide accommodation for additional occupiers, and this would in turn contribute towards the supply and mix of housing in the area. It would follow the Framework’s aim to promote effective use of land and to support the development of under-utilised land and buildings. However, given the scale of the development, the benefits would be limited. In contrast, I have found that the appeal proposal would result in an unacceptably poor living environment which would significantly harm future occupants’ living conditions, and that the limited off-street car parking would be likely to result in the displacement of vehicles on to the public highway.

I have been referred to several planning permissions for HMOs within the London Borough of Bexley2. However, I note that following those planning permissions both the LP and the BLP have been adopted, and that this introduces a new policy context. The circumstances of the schemes therefore differ. Regardless, each development must be assessed on its own individual merits, and my conclusion is based on the specific characteristics and impacts of the proposal before me.

A significant number of concerns from third parties have been raised in relation to the development. However, given my conclusions on the main issues and that the appeal is dismissed, there is no need for me to address these in further detail.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.