Appeal 6007172

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s final comments propose the relocation of bin and cycle storage, with details to be secured by condition. However, this would not amount to a minor amendment. The siting, scale and form of such structures, particularly if located to the front of the property, would have the potential to materially affect the layout and appearance of the site, as well as the relationship with neighbouring properties. These matters are fundamental planning considerations and have not been subject to public consultation. In these circumstances, to take them into account would risk prejudice to interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the drawings that were considered by the Council.

During my site visit, I was able to observe an existing rear balcony which is not shown on the submitted plans. As this is an established feature and has been referred to by the parties, I have taken it into account in my assessment.

The main issues are: • whether the development would provide a high standard of accommodation for the occupiers in terms of internal layout and communal provision; • whether the proposal demonstrates that the site can satisfactorily accommodate the intensity of use proposed, including parking, cycle storage, and refuse arrangements; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to associated activity, servicing and the relationship to [address].

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) 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 proposal would accommodate up to ten occupants. The evidence indicates that the bedrooms are generally of a size capable of supporting occupation and I do not find substantive harm arising solely from their dimensions. The key consideration is therefore the adequacy and functionality of the shared accommodation, rather than the size of individual rooms.

The appellant emphasises that there is no specific policy requirement for a separate living room and that some rooms are of a size that could provide a degree of private amenity. [name] have taken these points into account, they are not determinative. The absence of prescriptive national or local space standards does not remove the requirement under Policy H8 for accommodation to achieve a high standard. In each case, a qualitative assessment is required, having regard to how the accommodation would function in practice at the level of occupation proposed.

[name], communal space performs a particularly important role because unrelated occupants live independently and are likely to require concurrent use of shared facilities. This increases the need for such spaces to be sufficiently spacious, flexible and capable of accommodating multiple activities without undue conflict or constraint.

In this case, the kitchen/dining area would represent the sole communal space, serving cooking, dining, circulation and social functions. Although the room is not unduly constrained in size when considered in isolation, the intensity of use associated with up to ten occupants would place significant pressure on its capacity to function effectively. The absence of any separate living room would result in all shared activities being concentrated in a single space, leading to a high degree of overlap, competition for facilities and a reduced ability for the space to operate effectively as both a functional kitchen and a shared social environment.

Although some of the larger bedrooms could provide a degree of private retreat, reliance on bedrooms to compensate for a lack of meaningful communal space would not provide an equivalent standard of shared living environment and would be likely to result in a fragmented and isolated pattern of occupation, to the detriment of overall living conditions.

In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the communal space provision would operate effectively or satisfactorily for the number of occupants proposed, to the detriment of their living conditions. For this reason, I find that the development would fail to provide a high standard of accommodation for its occupiers in terms of internal layout and communal provision, contrary to Policy H8 of the YLP.

The proposal includes four off-street parking spaces accessed via an existing widened crossover. The appellant refers to the historic use of the site for parking and the presence of a dropped kerb to demonstrate that vehicular access is already established. However, the evidence before me indicates that this arrangement historically served two driveways and has not been shown to have operated as four independently usable parking spaces. Given the nature of the proposed use, it would be likely to result in more frequent and less coordinated vehicle movements than would typically be experienced at a single dwelling.

It is not disputed that the number of parking spaces could, in principle, serve the development. However, the parking layout provided is not supported by detailed information on dimensions, circulation space or vehicle tracking. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the spaces would function effectively in practice. In the absence of such evidence, it is reasonable to expect that some vehicles would instead be displaced onto the surrounding highway where parking is not restricted. During my site visit, I observed that [address] is relatively narrow, with existing on-street parking already constraining the effective carriageway width. Taking this together with the parking concerns raised by local residents, any additional on-street parking arising from the proposal would be likely to exacerbate existing pressures, leading to increased congestion and inconvenience for road users and nearby residents.

The parking arrangement would also operate in close proximity to the route required to access bin and cycle storage at the rear. The submitted plans do not demonstrate how these competing functions would operate together in practice, particularly having regard to the level of occupation and the likely frequency of use.

In respect of cycle and refuse provision, only indicative locations are shown. There are no details of the size, design, capacity or enclosure of these facilities. Secure and covered cycle storage capable of accommodating up to ten bicycles, including non-standard or adapted cycles, would likely be substantial. Similarly, the number, type and spatial requirements of refuse and recycling provision necessary to serve ten occupants have not been clearly established.

Taken together, the absence of this information means that it has not been demonstrated that the site can accommodate the combined requirements for parking, servicing and circulation in a coherent and conflict-free manner. This goes beyond the omission of limited detail.

The appellant suggests that these matters could be secured by condition. However, they go to the fundamental layout and capacity of the site. Resolving them would likely require substantive changes to the scheme, which would necessitate full assessment and public consultation. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to rely on conditions.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal fails to demonstrate that the site could accommodate the intensity of use proposed in a functional and practical manner, having regard to parking, cycle storage and refuse arrangements. The development would therefore conflict with Policy H8 of the YLP, which requires HMO accommodation to be of a high standard, and with Policy T1 of the YLP insofar as it has not been shown that safe and suitable access, circulation and cycle provision can be achieved. For similar reasons, it would also conflict with Policy D1 of the YLP, which requires development to be fit for purpose and to incorporate appropriately integrated servicing and parking arrangements.

The appeal site is located within a quiet residential area characterised predominantly by family dwellings. The application property is semi-detached and shares a close relationship with [address] (No 3), particularly in respect of its side and rear areas where there is limited separation.

The proposed use as a large HMO would result in a material intensification of activity compared to a single dwelling. Up to ten individuals, each with independent patterns of daily movement, visitors and servicing requirements, would be likely to generate a greater level and frequency of comings and goings. This pattern of occupation would be materially different from that of a single household and is likely to be more varied and less predictable throughout the day.

A significant proportion of this activity would be likely to occur within the side and rear of the site, in close proximity to No 3. The indicated siting of bin and cycle storage along the shared boundary would further concentrate activity in this area. Given the number of occupants, I consider that the use of these areas would be frequent. In the absence of detailed proposals, it has not been demonstrated that the siting, scale and use of these facilities could be accommodated without resulting in harmful effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3, particularly in terms of disturbance and visual impact.

A further concern arises from the intensity of occupation that could occur. Some of the bedrooms appear capable of double occupancy, such that the number of residents over time may exceed that indicated. Whilst a condition could in principle be imposed to limit occupancy, I attach limited weight to such a control. Occupancy levels within large HMOs can be difficult to monitor and enforce, and in any event such a condition would not address the underlying relationship between the intensity of use and the spatial constraints of the site or the concentration of activity arising from the proposed layout.

The appellant suggests that noise effects could be addressed through a management plan or by other regulatory regimes. However, no such plan has been provided and there is no substantive detail as to how the use would operate in practice. The day-to-day effects of intensified occupation, including noise, general activity and the use of external areas, are important planning considerations which fall to be assessed on the basis of the proposal before me. These effects arise from the scale and layout of the development itself, rather than solely from matters of management. The absence of an objection from the Council’s Environmental Health Section does not outweigh my concerns over the likely pattern and intensity of activity and its relationship with neighbouring properties. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to rely on conditions or other controls.

Drawing these matters together, I find that the development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to associated activity, servicing and the close relationship to [address]. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy H8 of the YLP insofar as it seeks to safeguard residential amenity, and with Policy D1 of the YLP where it seeks to ensure that development does not give rise to undue noise, disturbance or other adverse effects on nearby residents.

For completeness, I observed the existing rear balcony and have had regard to the comments from the owner of No 3. Given its modest size, established presence and relationship with the neighbouring property, I do not find that it would result in harmful overlooking or disturbance.

The Council raised additional concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposed parking. However, the extent of hard surfacing proposed would be limited and, in the context of the history of previous driveways and the residential surroundings, it would not appear harmful to the character or appearance of the area. I therefore do not find conflict with Policy D1 of the YLP in this respect.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application. However, these are procedural matters and do not affect the assessment of the proposal against the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations. They do not therefore alter my conclusions on the planning merits of the scheme.

The development would make use of existing housing stock and would contribute to the supply of shared accommodation in a reasonably accessible location. In this respect, it would make a positive, albeit limited, contribution towards meeting local demand for such accommodation. I attach moderate weight to these benefits.

However, for the reasons set out above, the development would give rise to a number of interrelated harms. It would fail to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, it has not been demonstrated that the site could function adequately at the level of occupation proposed, and it would result in unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There is conflict with Policies H8, T1 and D1 of the YLP. Taken together, these matters weigh very significantly against the proposal.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.