Appeal 6007036

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of the C4-approved dwelling house for Household of [name] (HMO) to a [name] - HMO, creating compliant 7 no. occupants within the existing building at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01300/COU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: S-13; S-08; S-09; S-01; S-11; S-12; S-10.

No more than 7 residents shall occupy the House in [name] (HMO) hereby permitted at any one time.

The HMO Management Plan shall be carried out as approved from first occupation and retained for the lifetime of the development.

The cycle and refuse bins shall be stored at all times in the designated storage areas as shown on the approved drawing S-08.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, I have removed any wording which in itself does not relate to acts of development.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on housing mix; and • the effect of the proposal on the character of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Policy LLP15 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 (2017) (LP) outlines that provision will be made for housing that meets the housing needs of Luton, ensuring the size, type and tenure provided reflects the identified housing need requirements of the area in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). [name] of the policy states that planning permission for residential development will be granted on sites not allocated for housing, provided it would not lead to a loss of other uses for which there is a recognised local need.

The Council’s most recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identifies a need for large 4+ bedroom homes and that this need is presently not being met. The Council recognises that this data is somewhat outdated, but it contends that there is a significant unmet need for family dwellings within the Borough, and that the proposal would exacerbate this through the loss of a family dwelling.

LP Policy LLP17 supports new HMOs, and it does not require a need for such accommodation to be demonstrated. Further, the SHMA indicates that there is likely to be a continued role for HMOs. Therefore, whilst recognising that there is a need for larger properties within the SHMA, there is limited evidence before me to indicate that HMOs could not assist in meeting the housing needs of Luton.

Notwithstanding the above, the property is currently in use as an HMO. I accept that the proposal would preclude the property from being used flexibly for purposes in Classes C3 or C4 in the future, and planning permission would be required to revert the use to a single-family home. However, the proposal would not involve external or internal alterations to the building, nor does the evidence before me suggest that it be unduly onerous to revert the appeal property back to a C3 single dwelling house.

In light of the above, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on housing mix. There would be no conflict with [name] LLP1 and LLP15. These policies, among other matters, require all development proposals to have regard to relevant plan policies, seek to deliver sustainable development and ensure new housing helps meet the housing needs of Luton. The Council have cited conflict with LP Policy LLP17. However, this is permissive of HMOs provided it does not adversely affect the character of the area and is in accordance with amenity and licensing standards. As such, I find no conflict with this policy in respect of this main issue.

The Council’s first reason for refusal refers to [name] LLP25, LLP31 and LLP32. However, these policies relate primarily to design, sustainable transport strategy and parking. Therefore, these policies are of limited relevance in the context of this main issue.

The appeal site is currently in use as a 6-bedroom HMO for up to 6 people within use class C4. The proposal seeks to increase the number of occupants to 7 people by converting the existing living room to a bedroom.

[site address] is a relatively quiet road with a predominantly residential character. The properties largely comprise rows of terraces and pairs of semi-detached dwellings. The appeal property comprises a narrow, mid-terrace house which is two-storey with a converted loft.

The proposal would result in one additional person living in the HMO, which would inevitably result in some increased activity within the building and externally, including additional comings and goings, visitors and deliveries at different times. While it may be that occupiers of HMOs largely live independently from one another, with varying routines and schedules, the increase in number of residents associated with the proposal would be modest and therefore unlikely to result in a level of activity of such a magnitude that would cause undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents.

Moreover, the dwelling would remain similar in outward appearance to the dwellings along [site address] , and hence indistinguishable from other forms of tenure in this specific location. The Council asserts that the area is experiencing a high concentration of HMOs, however, this is stance is not supported by robust evidence. The appellant advanced that, having researched the Council’s records, there appears to be three HMOs within [site address] . Be as it may, the property is already operating as an HMO and without any evidence of demonstrable harms to the amenity of the area. As such, the increase in the number of occupants by one person would be very slight in this particular context.

Therefore, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would accord with [name] LLP1, LLP17, LLP25 insofar as these policies support sustainable development, support HMOs which conform to amenity standards and seek to create quality places.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to [name] LLP15, LLP31 and LLP32. However, these policies relate primarily to housing provision, sustainable transport strategy and parking. Therefore, these policies are of limited relevance in the context of this main issue.

The officer report refers to issues regarding the living environment for future occupiers. However, no compelling reasoning was given to justify any such concerns, nor does the Council’s decision notice refer to any harm regarding this matter. As such, I have not considered this any further.

Concerns have been raised regarding the effect of the development on the sewage system. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the scheme would have a harmful impact in regard to this matter. Suggestions that the proposal is likely to lead to safety issues are unfounded.

There is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the parking stress in the area. Moreover, the provision of cycle storage and the proximity of nearby shops and public transport links would likely reduce the demand for cars and, in turn, reduce demand for car parking. Therefore, I find it unlikely that the proposal would result in an increase in parking demand to the detriment of the surrounding area.

I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In the interests of precision and clarity I have undertaken some rationalisation and rewording of the conditions suggested.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have imposed the suggested conditions relating occupancy. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the development is operated in accordance with the management plan and to ensure that cycle and refuse storage are contained to their defined areas. These conditions are imposed having regard to the character of the area and to the living conditions of the occupants and neighbours.

I have not imposed the Council’s suggested condition relating to external alterations to the building as this condition is seeking to remove permitted development rights. However, no permitted development rights exist for this proposed sui generis use. Thus, this condition is not necessary and would be contrary to PPG advice.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.