Appeal 6006109

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal property is a 2 storey 2 bedroom semi-detached house with a 2 storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and rear garden. It is located in a street and local area made up of similar semi-detached properties that are close set, with small front gardens that mainly include provision for off-street car parking, including the appeal property. The local area is predominantly residential in nature, and at the time of my middle of the day site visit, despite the connection between [address] and the [name] bound carriageways of the dualled A20, the street had very limited vehicular traffic. Overall, the area was quiet with very limited on street activity and represents a typically settled residential neighbourhood within London’s suburbs.

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 ) to HMO’s (Class C4) ) and requires that a planning application is required for such changes. Such an application for a 4 bedroom 4 person HMO (Class C4) at the appeal property was recently approved by the Council, although there is no indication that this has been implemented.

With internal alterations and the conversion of the garage to habitable rooms, the appeal proposal would provide for 8 bedrooms for 8 people in a large HMO ([name] use), all of which would have ensuite bathroom facilities. There would be 4 of these ensuite rooms on each floor along with separate kitchen facilities on each floor. This would result in a significant intensification of use of the appeal property. This intensification of use in larger HMOs ([name]) is recognised through them being in a separate use class to a single family dwelling (Class C3) and smaller HMOs (Class C4).

The appeal proposal follows refusal of previous applications for a change of use of the appeal property from a single dwelling house (Class C3) to an 8 bedroom 8 person HMO (Sui-Generis). The first of these was the subject of a dismissed appeal1. The reasons given for the dismissal in that instance was the harmful effect of noise and disturbance on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers and the harmful effect on the highway network, with reference to parking provisions.

Following this dismissal the appellant submitted a planning application2 for a slightly revised proposal. This included the internal layout of the proposed 8 bedroom 8 person HMO being amended so that the majority of the ensuite bathrooms would not be located on the party wall of the house and that a twin (double-layer) party wall with insulation to minimise airborne and structure-borne noise would be included. The results of an overnight parking survey that showed sufficient on street parking capacity in the local area was also submitted with the application.

Consequently, this application was refused solely for the effect of noise and disturbance on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with no harm to the effective use of the highway. With the application that is the subject of this appeal, the appellant has sought to overcome this single reason for refusal and has submitted a [name] Assessment3 (NBA), and has included noise mitigation measures in the design, comprising wall designs, fencing and hedging and has submitted an [name] Plan4 (HMOMP).

The proposal would result in 8 occupiers with differing independent lives and living, working and social patterns, with concomitant comings and goings at different times of the day and night. Therefore, the use of the property as an 8 Bedroom 8 [name] would therefore generate substantially more activity, and resulting noise and disturbance, compared to its existing use as a three bedroom single-family dwelling or in its approved use as a 4 bedroom 4 [name] (Class C4).

This intensification of use of the appeal dwelling as an 8 bedroom 8 person HMO would result in significant amounts of concomitant comings and goings to the appeal dwelling. The NBA states that only the off street parking on the appeal site has been considered with regard to vehicle activity, however, given the poor PTAL rating of the location, the use of motor vehicles for transport by occupiers, including taxis and privately owned vehicles, will be likely be greater than this for the 8 occupants proposed. The on street conversations associated with this activity is therefore also very likely to be in excess of that indicated in the NBA and to be over a wider area and to be for longer than assumed. In this regard I have given the findings of the NBA limited weight in my considerations.

The HMOMP includes measures intended to ensure that noise and disturbance by comings and goings is kept to a minimum by including rules and behaviour controls 1 Appeal Ref:6000373 2 Planning Ref: 25/2193/F 3 Noise Breakthrough Assessment. [name] ref: A3410W Version: 001 (2025) 4 HMO Management Plan by Redwoods (2025) restricting visitor times and external congregation. However, this would have no impact on the general effect of the normal comings and goings of occupiers of an 8 bedroom 8 [name] that I have identified above and would also be reliant on a complaint and detailed management system and its effective management without a manager on site, which includes measures such as a curfew on open windows at night etc. The proposed intensive use of the property would therefore risk noise pollution that would be greater than that of a single family household of a similar number of occupants but substantially greater than that of the occupiers of a 3 bedroom single family dwelling house (Class C3) or a 4 bedroom 4 [name] (Class C4).

The NBA comes to definitive conclusions about the noise breakthrough from the interior and exterior of the proposed HMO when in normal use and has recommendations for insulation that could be included in the construction of the interior. However, I find that these conclusions are based on assumed modelling that does not rely on baseline measurements or testing of the existing design and structure of the appeal property.

I further find that the NBA does not fully reflect the levels of independent activity of 8 different occupiers with differing life patterns and the effect this would have on the intensification of the use of the property and the noise and activity generated. This is without considering the noise associated with the incidental and louder instances associated with domestic life such as slammed doors, dropped items and given the occupants will all be adults, greater later night-time activity. I have therefore afforded the NBA limited weight in these regards.

Consequently, and with regard to the similar reasons given in the previously dismissed appeal, I find that the proposal would generate a level of activity and noise that would be experienced by neighbouring residential occupiers, in a quiet area where houses are close set, as intrusive and disruptive and would result in disturbance that would be incompatible with quiet residential enjoyment.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of allowed appeals for larger HMOs for 8 persons from across London. Whilst these demonstrate that such HMO’s are acceptable in planning terms, these would have been considered on their own individual merits, which is a main tenet of the planning system, and I have likewise in this case.

For the reasons above, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would conflict with Policy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) and Policies D13 and D14 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek development that does not undermine the quality of life of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal is dismissed.