Appeal 6006988

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to House in [name] (Use Class C4) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01448/FUL, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.

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

I have used the description of development set out on the decision notice as this more accurately reflects the nature and scope of the proposal than the description provided on the application form.

The main issue is whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers, having regard to the size, layout and functionality of the bedrooms and provision of communal space.

Policy H8 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) (YLP) requires that development for Houses in [name] (HMO) provides living accommodation of a high standard. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Controlling the Concentration of HMOs (2014) (SPD) reinforces that the assessment should focus on whether a dwelling is capable of accommodating additional residents and whether acceptable living conditions would be secured in practice, having regard to the internal layout and environmental qualities.

The Council’s refusal is based on the contention that two of the four bedrooms would be small and constrained, resulting in cramped and confined living conditions, particularly when taken together with the communal space provision. The evidence indicates that the concerns relate specifically to Bedroom 1 and Bedroom 2, which in the appeal scheme measure approximately 7.25 sqm and 6.79 sqm respectively.

I have had regard to the Council’s detailed assessment, which identifies issues relating to room shape, door swing and circulation space, in addition to floor area. These are relevant considerations. However, the assessment must be considered in the wider context, including subsequent developments at the site. Of particular importance is the recent grant of planning permission under reference 26/00035/FUL for an amended scheme at the appeal site. That scheme retains the same use, the same number of occupants and a similar overall layout, while introducing internal alterations to increase the size of Bedrooms 1 and 2. Bedroom 1 is increased slightly to just above 7.5 sqm, and Bedroom 2 is enlarged more substantially to just above 10 sqm. The Council’s officer report for that scheme concludes that the previous reason for refusal has been addressed because all bedrooms now exceed 7.5 sqm, and that the development would therefore provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

This attracts significant weight in my assessment. The approved scheme indicates that, in principle, the Council accepts that the property is capable of accommodating a four-person HMO, and that there are no inherent limitations in terms of overall space, communal provision or layout which would preclude such use. It also demonstrates that the identified harm was confined to the size and functionality of two bedrooms, rather than any wider deficiency.

Significantly, the approved scheme does not include any meaningful increase in communal accommodation. The kitchen/dining space remains essentially unchanged in size and arrangement. This indicates that the extent of communal space, or reliance upon bedrooms for day-to-day living, was not determinative in itself. Rather, the resolution of the refusal reason was achieved solely through the enlargement of the two smaller bedrooms.

In this respect, the difference between the refused and approved schemes is limited in overall planning terms. [name] 2 is enlarged more substantially, Bedroom 1 is increased only marginally. These changes do not fundamentally alter the overall arrangement of the accommodation, but instead reflect adjustments to the size and usability of individual rooms within an otherwise similar layout.

The Council’s reasoning for the approved scheme relies on achieving bedroom sizes of at least 7.5 sqm, drawing from the [name] (NDSS). However, neither Policy H8 nor the SPD prescribes a minimum bedroom size, and the Council’s officer report acknowledges that a smaller standard of 6.51 sqm is typically applied in the HMO context. Furthermore, the appeal decision referenced by the appellant1 confirms that the NDSS do not apply to HMOs and are not determinative.

Against that background, I find that the Council’s assessment in this case has effectively treated the 7.5 sqm NDSS figure as a decisive threshold. The approval of the amended scheme demonstrates the Council’s stance that once that threshold is exceeded, the accommodation is considered acceptable, notwithstanding that the communal space, overall layout and general arrangement 1 Appeal Ref: 6002556 remain largely similar. That approach sits uneasily with the policy framework, which does not prescribe a minimum bedroom size and instead requires a broader assessment of living conditions.

I accept that the two smallest bedrooms would offer more limited space and flexibility than those in the approved scheme. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that either room would be incapable of functioning as single bedrooms. Whilst the shortfall in floor area compared to the approved scheme is more pronounced in respect of Bedroom 2, its overall proportions and layout would still allow for the provision of essential furniture and circulation space. The shortfall in respect of Bedroom 1 is modest and, taken together, the identified limitations do not amount to a level of harm that would justify refusal.

Drawing these matters together, I find that the development would provide a satisfactory standard of living conditions for the occupiers. It therefore complies with Policy H8 of the YLP and with Policy D1 insofar as it relates to the provision of acceptable living conditions.

I have noted the concerns raised by the [address] Planning Panel, including in relation to the loss of a family dwelling and the potential effects of additional HMOs in the area. However, the evidence before me indicates that the proposal would not result in an undue concentration of HMOs and would remain within the thresholds set out in Policy H8. Other matters raised, including parking arrangements and the absence of a planning history as a HMO do not indicate conflict with the development plan as a whole, nor do they outweigh my findings on the main issue. They therefore do not justify a different overall conclusion.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and have assessed them against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of clarity and precision.

A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition requiring details of cycle storage to be submitted and approved prior to first occupation is necessary to ensure that adequate, secure and usable provision is made, and to promote sustainable modes of travel. A condition requiring adherence to the submitted Management Plan is necessary to ensure the appropriate operation of the development and to safeguard the living conditions of both future occupiers and neighbouring residents. Finally, a condition limiting the number of occupants to four is necessary to ensure that the level of occupation remains consistent with that assessed in this decision and to safeguard the living conditions of future occupiers and neighbouring residents.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the specified 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 drawings: Location Plan; Site Plan; Ground Floor Plan; First Floor Plan.

Prior to first occupation as a House in [name] (Use Class C4), secure and covered cycle storage shall be provided in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved cycle storage shall thereafter be retained for that purpose for the lifetime of the development.

The use hereby permitted shall operate in full accordance with the approved HMO Management Plan for: [site address] , and shall be adhered to for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), the use of the property as a house in multiple occupation shall not exceed more than 4 residents at any one time.