Appeal 6005831

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from Class C4 (small HMO - 6 rooms) to Class Sui Generis (large HMO - 9 rooms), alterations to ground and first floor front fenestration, provision of parking spaces and refuse and cycle stores to the front of the property at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM2025/00950, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • 2406/001 Location Plan and Existing Site Plan • 2406/002 [name] • 2406/003 [name] • 2406/010 Location Plan and Proposed Site Plan • 2406/011 [name] • 2406/012 [name]

Prior to the first occupation of the site as a house in multiple occupation by more than 6 residents, further details shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority of the cycle storage and refuse storage facilities indicated on drawings 2406/011 and 2406/012, including drawings of the proposed side and rear elevations and details of external materials and finishes. The cycle storage and refuse storage facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the site by more than 6 residents and thereafter so retained.

The development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the submitted [name].

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

In the banner heading above, I have taken the description of the proposal from the application form. The Council used an alternative description, which more accurately describes the proposed development, as it includes the proposed refuse and cycle storage facilities shown on the application drawings. That description was notified to the applicant when the application was validated, and it is referred to in their appeal submission. I have used the Council’s more accurate description in the decision above, having first advised the parties of that intention and given them an opportunity to comment.

The main issue is whether the site is suitably located for use as a large HMO (house in multiple occupation), having regard to relevant policies in the

[site address] is a wide, tree-lined street of typically suburban dwellings, many of which have been extended. The semi-detached house on the appeal site has been extended to the side and rear, as well as at roof level. According to the planning history outlined in the Council’s officer report, these are recent additions and change of use from a class C3 dwelling to a class C4 small HMO (up to 6 residents) 1 was approved around the same time.

In the Sutton Local Plan 2018 (SLP), Policy 10 deals with the loss of housing and conversion to different forms of housing, with Parts c and d of the policy setting out requirements relating to large HMOs. Policy 10c is applicable to ‘proposals for and extensions which result in an increase in residents to large houses in multiple occupation (seven people or more)’, whereas Policy 10d is applicable to ‘proposals for new large houses in multiple occupation’. The relevant requirements differ. Policy 10c refers to Areas of [name] (API) which are defined on the policies map, but Policy 10d does not.

No further extensions are proposed, but several extensions have already been implemented, and the plans indicate that the additional bedrooms would be within the side extension. As such, the existing extensions facilitate the proposed change of use, and the application does clearly propose an increase in residents. Since Policy 10c relates to intensification of existing HMO uses, it is potentially applicable in that scenario. However, the wording does not very precisely specify whether that part of the policy is only applicable to intensification of existing large HMOs or also applies to intensification across the threshold which distinguishes a small HMO (class C4) from a large HMO. That said, Policy 10d is clearly relevant, since a new large HMO would be created. 1 Use classes as defined in the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended)

The Council has taken the view that the criteria in Policy 10c should be applied and has referred to a 2022 appeal decision2 which reached the same conclusion. That related to a similar proposal for intensification from a C4 to large HMO use. In contrast, the appellant has drawn my attention to a recent Council decision3 in which the officer report stated that Policy 10c was only relevant to extensions to existing large HMOs. That was for change of use from a dwelling within use class C3, rather than a small HMO within use class C4, so the circumstances differ. Nevertheless, the comments made about the purpose of Policy 10c are pertinent to the interpretation of Policy 10 in this case.

The reason for refusal alludes to conflict with two of the criteria in Policy 10c, as the property is not detached and the site is not within an API. No conflict was alleged with the other criteria in Policy 10c or the requirements in Policy 10d.

The API is described by the Council as a clear spatial designation used to manage housing density and character. However, no specific harm to the character of the area is alleged in this case, either as a result of the increased density of occupation or otherwise. Furthermore, when read as a whole, Policy 10 does allow in principle for some large HMOs outside the API, since Policy 10d does not refer to that designation. There would be no loss of family housing, since the existing dwelling is already a small HMO. As such, I am not persuaded that a large HMO on this site would be intrinsically harmful to the Council’s wider strategy and objectives for the location of such uses. As acknowledged in the 2022 appeal decision, the individual circumstances of each case should also be considered.

The requirement in Policy 10c for the property to be detached could serve to protect the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers from increased activity and noise levels. However, in this case the Council has not alleged that there would be any adverse effect on living conditions for occupiers of the attached dwelling. The application was reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers who raised no objection. No material impact was alleged in terms of odours, noise, privacy or risk of antisocial behaviour and the [name] explicitly concludes that the proposal would accord with Policy 29 of the SLP, which relates to protecting amenity. Taking that into account, there is no substantive evidence that any harm would arise from the semi-detached nature of the property.

The only other nearby HMO brought to my attention is the small HMO at 37 [site address] . The two sites are adjacent, and no. 37 has been similarly extended. Nevertheless, the Council has not alleged that there would be an over-concentration in HMO use, applying the definition in Policy 10d. As previously noted, no harm was alleged to the character of the area. Therefore, the requirements in Policy 10d would be satisfied.

In conclusion, in the circumstances of this particular case, I find that the site is suitably located for use as a large HMO, having regard to relevant policies in the development plan. The proposal would accord with Policy 10d, and it has not been demonstrated that any harm would arise from the technical conflict with Policy 10c. There is no identified conflict with policies relating to living conditions for occupiers of neighbouring properties or the effect of development on the character and appearance of the area. In my judgement, even if Policy 10c is applied, the proposal would accord with the development plan when read as a whole. 2 Appeal ref: APP/P5870/W/21/3287238 3 Planning application ref DM2025/00171

Notwithstanding the site’s relatively low level of transport accessibility (PTAL2), there are shops and services within walking and cycling distance, and a bus service is available. Therefore, occupiers of the HMOs have options for travelling without being reliant on the private car. Nevertheless, only two parking spaces would be retained on the appeal site, with the rest of the driveway being used for new cycle and refuse storage facilities.

At the time of my site visit, there were several cars parked in the road outside nos. 37 and [site address] , but fewer elsewhere along [site address] . That may indicate that use of both properties as HMOs is generating some on-street parking, which could increase. However, parking is unrestricted along most of [site address] and the majority of the nearby dwellings also have private driveways. The Council did not raise any concerns about the effect of parking on the character and appearance of the area. Nor does it appear that parking associated with the increased occupancy would cause any harmful level of inconvenience to other residents.

Although [site address] is a bus route, and one of the main routes to the nearby shops and facilities, vehicles including buses were able to flow freely in both directions at the time of my site visit without being hindered to any material degree by parked cars. While that is only a snapshot in time, there is no substantive evidence that traffic would be harmfully restricted or that any highway safety issues would arise.

Compliance with any additional licensing requirements to ensure that a suitable standard of accommodation is provided is subject to a separate regulatory regime and outside the scope of this appeal. The Council has provided evidence that the application was advertised, so interested parties had a sufficient opportunity to comment. I have also taken representations received into account.

I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, in the interest of clarity. However, details of the proposed cycle and refuse store on those drawings are incomplete. For precision, and to ensure that these facilities are of suitable design and materials, I have imposed a condition requiring that further details are submitted, approved and implemented in advance of occupancy being increased. A condition requiring compliance with the submitted fire statement is also necessary for the safety of future occupiers.

The proposed construction works would be limited in scope and finite in duration, so there is no clear justification for a condition restricting hours of work to protect neighbouring amenities.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.