Appeal 6005576

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 4 bedroom 4 person HMO at [site address] [site address] , Upminster, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1398.25, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the submission accordingly.

Following my site visit the appellant submitted revised plans that shows the internal layout and use of rooms as they were on the day of my visit. The revised plan 2025/209-P01 [name] shows that the room shown as the living room on plan 2025/209-P01 submitted with the original application, is now in use as a single bedroom and that the room shown on the plan submitted with the original application as Bedroom 4 is now not in use. Given that the revised plan shows the layout as existing and for which planning permission is sought, I have sought and received comments from the Council on these plans, and I have accepted the plans in line with the Wheatcroft principles1.

Given my reading of all documents submitted during the appeal process I find that the main issues are the effect on: • Housing provision in the Council area; • The living conditions of occupants; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. [site address] Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]

The appeal property is a single family dwelling house (Class C3), but it has been in use as a small House in [name] (HMO) (ClassC4) since 2023. The Council have put in place an Article 4 direction for the borough area that removes the permitted development right for a change of use from single family dwelling (Class C3 use) to HMO’s (Class C4) ) and requires that a planning application is required for such changes. Although licensed by the Council as a small HMO, it does not have the benefit of a planning permission for this use. This appeal relates to the refusal of such an application.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached house. This is located on an active street opposite a bus stop, on what appeared to be a relatively busy bus route. The street and local area is made up of a variety of residential properties including houses, flats and maisonettes. The appeal property is located within a short walk from a variety of shops, restaurants and takeaways, services and a public house, mainly located in what appears to be a thriving retail parade at [address].

Policy 8 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (the Local Plan) states that the Council will support applications for HMO’s where the size of the original property to be converted is not less than [address] Metres. In this case the appeal property is [address] Metres. And the internal layout of the property would remain the same as a single family dwelling (Class C3) or as an HMO (Class C4).

The need for specific housing types in the Borough’s housing mix and the intensification in use in small HMO’s is recognised through the separate use class of small HMO’s and the adoption of the Article 4 Direction by the Council requiring a planning permission for such a change from a single family dwelling (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4), which supports Policy 8 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has set out in their statement the evident need for HMOs in London, including in the Borough. The appellant has also set out the case for HMOs that meet the needs for specific groups. In this case the HMO is used for those who are homeless or have a recent history of offending, which includes those that have been convicted or released from prison within the last twelve months and are at risk of having to sleep rough in the Borough. Policy 6 of the Local Plan seeks to support the provision of appropriate housing to meet the specialist needs of local people.

Both the Havering and Redbridge Local Housing needs Assessment (2023) and the Havering Borough Council Housing Strategy 2022-2025 recognise a significant shortfall in the provision of housing options for vulnerable people, including supported housing for ex-offenders. These clearly identify that the need for appropriate accommodation for residents with the needs identified, and I am satisfied, from the material submitted by the appellant, that this need is evidenced and acute.

Although the Council is failing in its required2 provision of housing within the borough, the loss of a single family home would result in a very limited loss of this type of housing within the context of housing provision within the borough as a 2 [name]: 2023 Measurement whole. However, the provision of an HMO that meets the housing requirements of a specific group, where the provision of such accommodation is lacking and the demand and need is acute, would be a significant addition to the provision of such accommodation within the borough.

For these reasons, I find that the change of use from Class C3 to C4, whilst reducing the Borough’s provision of single family dwellings (Class C3) by [site address] , would provide for the acute need for a HMO (Class C4) of the type proposed. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would be justified and would contribute to an appropriate and evidenced balance between housing needs and provision, which would result in a neutral effect on the overall provision of residential accommodation within the borough, but with the benefit of providing for an evidenced acute housing need.

The revised plans submitted by the appellant as part of the appeal process show the layout as existing and for which planning permission is sought. The room shown as the living room on the plan submitted with the original application is now in use as a single bedroom measuring 17.[address] Metres, and the room shown on the plan submitted with the original application as Bedroom 4 and measuring 5.[address] Metres is now not in use.

This revision in layout results in only Bedroom 2, as shown on the originally submitted and revised plans, which measures 7.[address] Metres, being less that the 8.[address] Metres set out in the HMO East London Guidance (HMO Guidance) as the recommended minimum for a single occupancy bedroom. However, it would meet the 7.[address] Metres minimum required by the [name] – [name] (2015) (the space standards).

[name] 2 would be slightly less than [site address] [name] smaller than the recommended size set out in the HMO guidance, the HMO guidance sets out that this needs to be assessed along with the extent and quality of the communal areas of the property. Even with living space shown on the originally submitted plans now being used as a bedroom, the plans as existing submitted as part of the appeal process show a shared combined dining living space measuring 16.[address] Metres and an adjoining kitchen area measuring 9.[address] Metres. This provides for communal space for the occupants of a 4 Bedroom 4 [name], which is slightly in excess of the minimum set out in the HMO guidance, but which is of high quality.

As such I find that the development results in a satisfactory balance and standard sleeping and living accommodation that has no significant detrimental effect on the living conditions of its occupants.

The Council’s concerns in this regard are in relation to the comings and goings of people and vehicles. [name] have identified and set out above, the appeal property is located in an active location, well served by a bus stop and local facilities. Whilst located on a prominent corner, and not in a cul-de-sac as stated in the Council officer’s report, this also represents one of the busiest parts of the street, with many pedestrians and regular bus activity. Given the facilities and active nature of the local area, the area is one that provides a suitable location for a small HMO (Class C4), where the comings and goings throughout the day, although likely to be slightly greater than that of a single family dwelling (Class C3), blend and match with the activity of the location and immediate local area.

For these reasons, I do not find that the proposed change of use would result in any inherently significant increase in noise or disturbance that would be of detriment to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

Third party concerns have been raised with regard to smells and interactions with residents of the appeal property. [name] note these concerns, the information provided is limited with no independent evidence. I concur with the Council’s finding that these concerns do not represent a reasonable basis for a refusal of planning permission.

Whilst resulting in the loss of a smaller single family dwelling (Class C3), less than [address] Metres in size, contrary to point i. of Policy 8 of the Local Plan, the appeal development would meet the other 6 points of this policy and provide an acceptable level of sleeping/living accommodation and would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of occupiers.

Further, the appeal development also accords with Policy 6 of the local plan, in providing accommodation that meets the specialist needs of local people where there is an identified need within the borough, has access to essential services and shops by walking and cycling, is well served by public transport, contributes to a mixed, balanced and inclusive community, is suitable for the intended occupiers in terms of the standard of facilities, the level of independence, and the provision of support and/or care. Also provides an appropriate level of amenity space to meet the needs of the intended occupants, can be easily adapted to meet the needs of future occupants; does not have any unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding area and will not be likely to give rise to significantly unacceptable greater levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties. As such it also accords with Policy 7 of the Local Plan, which seeks development that protects the amenity of existing and future residents from unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.

Notwithstanding the loss of a single family dwelling in a borough that is failing to achieve its housing delivery requirements, in these circumstances, I find that the minimal loss of a single small family dwelling (Class C3), less than [address] Metres in size, would offset against the provision of a 4 bedroom 4 person HMO (Class C4), which would provide supported housing for ex-offenders, for which there is evidenced and acute need. As such, the appeal development would contribute to an appropriate and evidenced balance between housing needs and provision, which would result in a neutral effect on the overall provision of residential accommodation within the borough, but with the additional benefit of meeting an identified acute need for specialist supported accommodation. The appeal development would also accord with policies H9 and H10 of the London Plan (2024), which seek to ensure that the role of good quality houses in multiple occupation is taken into account in meeting local and strategic housing needs and achieving a suitable housing size mix. For these reasons, the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm to the provision of single family accommodation in this instance.

Whilst the council have raised concerns with regard to an allowed appeal setting a precedent for the change of use from a single family dwelling (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4) in a wider context. However, each planning proposal should be considered on its own individual merit, which is a main tenet of the planning system, and I have done so in this case.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council should I be minded to allow this appeal. I have not attached a condition setting a maximum number of occupants, as the planning permission for a 4 bed 4 person HMO is already specific and enforceable in this regard. [name] have not found that the appeal development results in nuisance through unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance, I have also not attached a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Noise Management Plan. Such a condition would not be necessary and would not meet the requirements for conditions set out in Government’s Planning Practice Guidance or the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

As the development that is the subject of this appeal has commenced, I have not included the condition for the time limit on implementation of the development. In the interests of good design and the living conditions of occupiers, I have attached conditions requiring compliance with approved plans. I have also attached a condition requiring approval of details and provision of secure bicycle storage facilities to ensure alternative transport provision to motorised vehicles for occupiers. To ensure that occupiers have adequate access to refuse and recycling facilities, I have attached a condition requiring approval of details and provision of suitable facilities. In the interests of creating safer, sustainable communities, I have attached a condition requiring submission and approval of a Secured by Design award scheme application and its implementation and certification.

The appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2025/209-SP1, 2025/209-P01 [name], 2025/209-P02 and 2025/209-P03.

Within 3 months of the date of this decision an application for the Secured by Design award scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating how Secured by [name] will be achieved. The development shall achieve a Certificate of Compliance to the relevant Secure by [name](s) and this certificate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and any recommended measures carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter shall be fully retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Within 3 months of the date of the decision, details of refuse and recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with approved details and permanently retained thereafter.

Within 3 months of the date of the decision, details of cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle storage shall be provided in accordance with approved details and permanently retained thereafter. End of Schedule