Appeal 6006282

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing drawings show the appeal property configured as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). The Council officer’s planning report states that the application is retrospective. The description of development indicates that its prior use was as a single dwellinghouse and the Council made its decision on this basis. I have therefore determined the appeal in the same manner.

The description of development is taken from the planning application form, but the description subsequently used by the Council clarifies that the proposal is for a four-bed HMO for up to six people. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would make appropriate provision for refuse and recycling storage, with particular regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the host building and street scene.

The appeal site is a two-storey, mid-terrace house with basement accommodation. There is no front garden, with the house being set back from the street behind a small lightwell area to basement level. There are railings to the front boundary with steps up from the street, half a level, to the front door. There is therefore limited space in front of the building, and no level area sufficient to accommodate refuse bins without some impediment to access to the property.

In the vicinity of the appeal site, [address] comprises similar, closely spaced terraced properties, with views along the street therefore being contained. There is no direct access to the rear garden from the street at the appeal site and in common with neighbouring properties refuse, recycling and green wheelie bins are kept on the pavement.

At my site visit I observed two to three bins in front of each property in the vicinity of the appeal site. Given the constrained views, along the road, and the number of bins on the pavement outside each house, they are a prominent and detrimental feature of the streetscape.

A total of five bins is proposed for the HMO, stored on the pavement. This is two more bins than is required for a single family dwelling in the Council’s guidance1. In their appeal statement, the appellant has indicated that the number of bins could be reduced to four, but has provided no substantive evidence that this would be adequate provision for up to six individuals occupying a four-bed HMO.

Plans showing the configuration of the house as a single family dwelling have not been provided, but it is likely to contain three or four bedrooms. It is highly probable that up to six people, living as four separate groups, would cumulatively generate more waste than occupation of the building as a single dwellinghouse; in that they would perform many day-to-day tasks, such as preparing meals, separately; which would generate separate waste from each occupant or group.

The appeal site is being used as a HMO, and it is stated that the property currently has four bins. This exceeds the number required for use of the building as a single family dwelling and supports the view that the HMO use would require additional bins.

Given it is impractical for the bins to be stored in the rear garden, or in the small basement area to the front of the building, any additional bin or bins would have to be located on the public pavement. This would exacerbate the existing situation, resulting in further inappropriate clutter on the pavement, and cause additional, cumulative harm to the host building and street scene.

The appellant suggests that a condition could be imposed to require details of a waste management plan to be approved. However, I am not convinced that a condition relating to the number of bins, or bin storage outside the appeal site on the public footway, would pass the test of being enforceable. Furthermore, it would be unlikely to overcome the necessity for a greater number of bins, stored on the pavement, were the property to be in use as a HMO rather than a single dwellinghouse.

Policy H5 of the Council’s Local Plan2 sets out the expectation that new development, including conversions, achieve a high quality of design, including adequate provision for recycling waste. Policy DH1 of the Local Plan also requires that development positively contributes to the improvement of the built environment, including an expectation of dedicated recyclable waste storage space.

Policy SI7 of the London Plan (2021) requires development to be designed with adequate storage space to support, as a minimum, the separate collection of dry recyclables and food waste. Policy SI8 of the London Plan requires that development plans plan for identified waste needs. 1 New Development: Guidance Notes for the Storage and Collection of Waste and [name] for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, 2018. 2 Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name], 2014.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not provide appropriate provision for refuse and recycling storage, in a manner that would not harm the character and appearance of the host building and street scene. It would therefore conflict with Policies H5 and DH1 of the Local Plan and Policies SI7 and SI8 of the London Plan, the aims of which are set out above.

The appellant states that the Council under-deliver on their housing needs and that a HMO would contribute towards meeting those targets. However, no evidence has been provided to support this or to demonstrate that there is an identified need for the type of accommodation proposed, rather than a family dwelling. Neither has it been shown that a need for smaller housing units cannot be delivered elsewhere in a less harmful manner.

I acknowledge that, in the officer’s planning report, the Council relied on comments from their waste officer relating to a previous application3 at the appeal site. This was for a proposed HMO with six-beds and up to nine occupants, which raised similar issues. However, I have determined the appeal based on the facts of this case and the observations at my site visit.

Whilst the Council does not raise any objections to the proposal on other grounds, compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.