Appeal 6007263

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the provision of family dwellings in the area.

The appeal site is a two-storey, end-of-terrace property on the corner of Walton Village and [address]. The current format of the property includes a vacant commercial unit and office space at a ground floor level with a two-bedroom self-contained flat above. Access to the residential flat is taken via internal stairs to the side elevation of the property onto [address]. Despite the commercial nature of the ground floor unit, the predominant character of the surrounding area are residential terrace properties.

The proposed development involves the creation of a 6-bed House in [name] (HMO) which would consist of a kitchen / dining area along with 3 bedrooms on the ground floor and a communal lounge and 3 bedrooms at a first-floor level. To accommodate these internal changes to the building, the proposed development also includes the infilling of the existing shopfront.

Policy H10 2 (n) of the Liverpool Local Plan (LLP), adopted in 2022, sets out that planning permission will be granted for the conversion of dwellings / buildings into HMOs providing that the development would not cause the loss of a dwelling that is suitable in size, design, layout and location for the continued use as a family dwelling.

I have not been presented with any formal definition of what constitutes a family dwelling, however the submitted plans show that the existing self-contained flat includes a separate kitchen, living area and bathroom facilities along with two separate bedrooms. In my view the size of the existing residential unit and the facilities it provides are sufficient in principle to accommodate a small family and could reasonably be described as a family dwelling. No evidence, such as long-term marketing of the property for either sale or rent, suggests that it would not be attractive to future occupation from those with smaller families.

Due to the current access arrangements, including a high-stepped entrance, and stairs to the first floor, the property is not easily accessible for those with young families, particularly those with pushchairs or with mobility issues. Therefore whilst the existing access arrangements into the property would represent a greater challenge to those groups, it would not be sufficient to preclude all family groups, such as those with older children.

The commercial unit and office space at the ground floor are currently vacant and either element could return to an active use in the future. However, there is little evidence before me to suggest that their future use would have a direct impact on the living conditions of occupants on the first floor. [name] recognise the shared access arrangements which currently exist between the residential flat and the ground floor office space, there is little to suggest these arrangements have had a detrimental impact on the living conditions of existing occupants.

The current residential accommodation has no dedicated parking and limited outdoor space for its occupants. However, it is not unusual in areas of high density terraced housing, with small rear yard areas and on-street parking.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause the loss of a dwelling that is suitable in size, design layout and location for continued use as a family dwelling. As such, it would have a harmful effect on the provision of family dwellings in the area. Consequently, in this regard the proposal conflicts with Policy H10 2 (n) of the LLP.

A number of benefits would result from the proposal, including improving the frontage of the property, the creation of better access arrangements for all occupants, improved rear garden facilities and internal utility improvements. [name] acknowledge these benefits, I attach limited positive weight to these factors, and they do not overcome the concerns raised above.

I have considered the appeal on its own merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling or interpretation of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, read as a whole. 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.