Appeal 6005957

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision notice cites policies contained within the [name],

However, during the determination of this appeal, the London Borough of Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041, 2026 (LP) has been adopted and thus has superseded the policies contained within the [name]. I have been provided with the relevant policies and have determined this appeal accordingly.

The main issues are: • Whether the site location is suitable for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies governing such proposals; and • The effect of the proposed development on future occupiers and adjoining occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the west side of [address] in Wealdstone. The property features side, rear and roof extensions, rear amenity space and a paved front forecourt for off-street vehicular parking. The existing dwelling is bound to the south by the car park serving [address], and to the north west by residential gardens of No 81, 83, and [address]. The host building is currently used as a 6 bed / 6 person house in multiple occupation (HMO), and the wider area is predominately residential.

The proposed development seeks planning permission for the change of use of the existing dwelling from a small HMO (use class C4) with 6 bedrooms / 6 residents to a large HMO (use class [name]) with 6 bedrooms and 11 residents.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy HO10 of the LP relates to housing with shared facilities (Houses in [name]). It explains that development proposals for HMO and Hostels with shared facilities in the Sui Generis Use Class will only be permitted, providing they comply with certain criteria. This includes amongst others, that (2) it is located within an area that has a PTAL rating of 4-6 with good access to public transport, local services and facilities.

The appeal site lies within an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2 indicating poor access to public transport. Given this relatively poor level of transport accessibility, the proposed intensification of use to a large HMO (11 - person) is not considered sustainable and would be contrary to Policy HO10 objectives of directing HMO accommodation within areas of higher public transport accessibility to enable sustainable development.

Bus routes and some facilities may be within walking distance, but the site still lies within an area with a PTAL rating of 2 which indicates poor access to public transport. I note the appellant’s intentions of handing out information to tenants regarding transport as well as provision of cycle parking. However, this would not overcome the conflict with Policy HO10 as the PTAL rating is still poor and below that required for such HMO’s to be permitted.

The site may neighbour a PTAL 3 block to the south and west, but this does not alter the accessibility level for the site itself and in any event Policy HO10 requires a PTAL rating of 4-6 and thus a level of 3 would still fall short of this requirement.

It is acknowledged that the site is already in use as a six-bedroom HMO, but this would not justify further intensification in this specific location particularly as it conflicts with the locational criteria of Policy HO10 of the LP.

For the reasons given above, I conclude on this issue that the site location is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies governing such proposals. It would be contrary with Policy HO10 of the LP and also the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) relating to promoting sustainable transport.

In addition to the locational criteria of Policy HO10 of the LP as set out above, criteria (4) also sets out that there should be no harmful impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and the character of the area.

The site is in a residential area and sits in close proximity to a number of other residential properties. The appeal site was understood to be a purpose-built single storey single dwelling family house. The number of proposed occupiers would be significantly more than would typically be expected for a single dwelling family house or indeed that of the existing HMO. The use of the site for the proposed number of occupiers has the potential for increased noise and disturbance including that caused by comings and goings and the use of the house and garden at unacceptable levels, to the detriment of existing neighbours.

The proposal would result in the over-intensive use of the property and is a significant departure of the intended use of the building. The increase in the number of occupants would result in undue levels of noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers 106 and [address], and [address]. It would also result in levels of noise and disturbances to the occupiers of the site itself which I find to be unacceptable.

The proposed occupancy levels may be within the capacity of the property, but this does not mean that it would not result in noise and disturbance to an unacceptable level. The appellant has suggested a comprehensive management plan to address concerns regarding noise and disturbance. Such detail is not however before me nor are any details of any sound installation measures. I cannot therefore conclude with certainty that such would sufficiently mitigate against matters relating to noise and disturbance. In coming to such findings, I have had due regard to the spatial relationship of the site and its neighbours as well as window positionings etc. This would not however overcome the harm identified as the intensification of the site in this specific location still has the opportunity to cause unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. Further, such spatial relationships do not alter the disturbances within the house itself or garden areas.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would unacceptably harm future occupiers and adjoining occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It would therefore be contrary to Policies D3D(7), D3.D(9), D3.D(10) and D14 of The London Plan, 2021 as well as Policy HO10 of the LP. Such policies together, amongst other matters, explain that development proposals should deliver appropriate amenity. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to the guidance contained in the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places.

The matters not in dispute would not weigh in favour of the scheme but would rather be a neutral factor in my overall decision.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination that would outweigh the identified harm and associated plan conflict. I conclude that the appeal is therefore dismissed.