Appeal 6006568

The appeal is dismissed.

For clarity and certainty and to encompass some of the physical alterations proposed, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice and the appeal form in the banner heading above.

Through their submissions, the appellant has indicated that the appeal property has an established lawful use as a House in [name] (HMO). Within the context of an appeal under Section 78 of the Act it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development requires planning permission as claimed by the appellant. However, I shall consider the evidence as to whether permission is required as far as it is relevant to this appeal. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether the development is lawful, they may make an application under Section 191 or 192 of the Act.

I have noted that permission is being sought retrospectively. This matter is not in dispute between the parties. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • the provision of dwellings that are suitable for use as family dwellings in the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

The appeal building is a two-storey terrace property typical for the character of the surrounding area. The property is located within a primary residential area, as defined by the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (LLP) and is within a location where an Article 4 Direction has been issued to remove the permitted development rights of C3 dwellings to convert into small Houses of [name] (HMO) under Use Class C4. The Article 4 Direction came into force in this area on 17th June

To regularise them, HMO’s which had been operating without planning permission prior to the introduction of the Article 4 Direction therefore require either a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) to demonstrate their established use or planning permission to secure a change of use.

It is the appellant’s position that the established use of the appeal property since 2020 has been that of a six-bedroom C4 Use Class HMO. They have provided evidence of tenancy agreements and licensing consents, aiming to show the property has been operating for that purpose continuously. As the Council points out these are not evidence of actual occupation. The evidence provided does not demonstrate the use of the property was lawful for planning purposes. Indeed, I have no evidence before me that in the time prior to, during or since the Article 4 Direction came into force that and LDC for a HMO use is extant. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, in my judgement the lawful planning status of the appeal property appears to be a C3 dwellinghouse and the proposal needs to be considered against the policies of the adopted Local Plan upon this basis.

Policy H10 2 (n) of the LLP sets out that planning permission will be granted for the conversion of dwellings / buildings into HMOs provided it would not cause the loss of a dwelling which is suitable for the continued use as a family dwelling. That it has not been occupied as a family dwelling for some years does not necessarily mean that it does not constitute a suitable dwelling as set out in Policy H10. It is also located in an area where an overconcentration of HMOs was identified and there is nothing substantive before me to suggest the situation has materially changed.

[name] have not been presented with any formal definition by either party to what constitutes a family dwelling, I can note from the submitted plans the appeal property consists of a living room, kitchen, bathroom and one bedroom to the ground floor, four bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor and three bedrooms to the second floor. In my view, the size of the existing dwelling and the facilities it provides are sufficient and appropriate to accommodate a family and I see no reason why it could not be returned to a C3 dwellinghouse use.

I note the appellant’s point regarding the close proximity of the appeal property to other HMOs on the street and the implications that it may have to its attractiveness for families. However, there is no substantiating evidence before me to demonstrate this is the case, which might include marketing of the property for either sale or rent, to suggest that the appeal property and its location would not be attractive to future occupation from families.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a series of appeal decisions although the detailed evidence relating to the exact circumstances of each case that was before those Inspectors are not before me. So a fully comprehensive comparison between their circumstances and that of the appeal scheme is not possible.

The appellant has submitted appeal decisions from both 31 Liscard Road1 and 62 Woodlands2. However, in both these cases I note that these are materially different in that an LDC had already been issued for these properties prior to the appeal. Further cases have been identified including 74 Ashfields3, 13 Ivanhoe4 and 79 Salisbury Road5 which involve the conversion of dwelling houses to HMOs in the absence of an LDC. In the case of 74 Ashfields the Inspector concluded the site was operating as a C4 HMO which had been established with the benefit of permitted development and that the proposal would not result in unacceptable development conditions. In relation to the 13 Ivanhoe case, there appeared to be a lengthy planning history to the appeal site and there was no conflict with policy in respect of living conditions. In regard to the appeal at [address], the Inspector concluded that the proposed internal layout would not be suited to ongoing family use and that the street already had a significant number of HMO properties. As a result, I conclude that these cases are not directly comparable to the circumstances of the scheme before me.

As a result, for the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would adversely affect the provision of family dwellings in the area. It would conflict with Policy H10 2 (n) of the LLP which states that conversions to HMOs will only be permitted where it would not cause the loss of a dwelling that is suitable in size, design, layout and location for continued use as a family dwelling.

[address] is a well-used route through the residential suburb of Wavertree. It is characterised by primarily residential uses but also a fair range of commercial uses including retail units, hot food takeaways and business premises. I observed during my site visit quite a level of activity in terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and comings and goings from local businesses.

The Council’s concern in regard to the consequences of increased occupation of the property is reflected in their supplementary guidance on the ‘Conversion of Buildings into Flats and Bedsits’ (SPG7). This indicates that the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties should be minimised, and consideration for whether the proposed land use is acceptable in principle or not. The proposed development would involve the creation of up to a eight-bedroom HMO with occupiers living largely independent lives, reduced dependence on shared travel, generating a significant level of comings and goings, deliveries and use of communal areas, all of which are likely to generate increased noise and disturbance levels above the lawful use and recent occupation levels. Alone or in combination with the activity at the adjacent HMO there could be significant adverse effects upon the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

From the evidence before me, a management plan does not appear to be a policy requirement. However, the lack of information provided as part of the application, such as a plan which clearly sets out the management arrangements, leads to a 1 APP/Z4310/W/25/3369372 2 APP/Z4310/W/23/3332441 3 APP/Z4310/W/21/3289739 4 APP/Z4310/W/22/3310240 5 APP/Z4310/W/24/3357354 lack of clarity over the levels of activity expected, when such activity will occur and a judgement to the level of harm which could arise and if so how this could be satisfactorily managed at the appeal site. While the property has been occupied for a similar use, all evidence suggests there were fewer residents and less sustained periods of use than might be anticipated from this appeal proposal.

The appellant has suggested that the management of the property will be effectively self-regulated by its occupants through their tenancy agreements. However, it has not been substantiated by the appellant that such agreements would cover the full range of arrangements and obligations, such as how the property would be kept clean, waste disposal, the occupancy levels in each room, visitor arrangements and any potential physical noise mitigation measures to the building that you would expect to see contained within a management plan. Given the proposed size and potential implications which could arise from its use as an 8- bed HMO, I consider this unmanaged approach could potentially result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

The appellant has cited the appeal decisions at [address] and 74 Ashfield as being relevant to this matter. In the 74 Ashfield case, the Inspector indicated that a C4 HMO lawful use and fall-back position was present, and in the [address] case there was an LDC in place and the evidence points to a comparatively modest increase in individual occupiers living separate lives, which I cannot conclude in respect of this appeal scheme.

Consequently, based on the information before me I cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with particular reference to noise and disturbance. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy H7 of the LLP which states that, in regard to new housing development, the living conditions of existing residents should be protected. The proposal is also contrary to Policy H10 2 (b) of the LLP which indicates that planning permission will be granted where there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the character of the surrounding area, particularly in regard to increased activity, noise or disturbance.

Though it would only be for a single dwelling, the proposal would result in the loss of a suitable dwelling for use as a family dwelling, in conflict with a key policy objective of the LLP, and for which I understand the [name] Assessment (2025) clearly highlights there is a shortage of. I attribute this matter significant weight against the appeal scheme. Ensuring a proposal would not result in harmful living conditions to neighbouring occupiers is also an important matter, and that it is not been demonstrated, also attracts significant weight against the appeal scheme. These matters outweigh the benefits of the appeal scheme such as in respect of improving occupier amenity and retaining the character of the area as advanced by the appellant.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.