Appeal 6007498

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property is a semi-detached former single dwelling since converted into a 6-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO). It is set within an established residential area where several other houses have been converted into HMOs. A roof extension has been built under the terms of a certificate of lawfulness granted by the Council. The intention is that the additional space created in the loft would be occupied by two additional bedrooms and a common room.

The Council now acknowledges that one of its reasons for refusing the application, that alleging a poor outlook for future occupants of the two proposed bedrooms, could be addressed by condition in the event of planning permission being granted. I share that view.

Reference is made to several development plan policies. However, policy DM23 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (LP) deals specifically with residential uses other than dwellings, including HMOs. I therefore consider this policy to be the most pertinent to this appeal.

The main issue is the acceptability of the future living conditions of the property’s residents with specific reference to noise, disturbance and common rooms.

The Council is concerned that the use of the proposed common room in the converted loft would result in activity which may disturb other residents in their bedrooms. In a development of this nature wherein the occupants do not live as a single household some disturbance is inevitable at certain times. Moreover, as the appellant points out, the proposed common room is not sited directly above bedrooms, and wall and floor insulation can mitigate the worse effects of sound impacts. I consider the layout design has properly taken the prospect of noise and disturbance into consideration and, had the appeal succeeded, a noise insulation condition could reasonably have been imposed.

Policy DM23 requires an adequate level of common rooms to be provided, in this case three. One is already provided at lower ground level, and another is proposed within the loft. The appellant proposes a utility area on the first floor as a common room and/or an outbuilding, which could be converted to a quiet room to be used possibly as a study.

I note the semantic exchanges of the parties as to the meaning of the term ‘common room’, but to my mind, basic common sense should sometimes prevail. The small utility room is simply that, its main function is to house a boiler and water tank, whereas in the normally accepted planning sense of the term a common room is where residents would use to prepare or eat food or simply sit and relax.

Whilst noting that the policy requirement is for common rooms to be provided ‘within’ the building, the proposed use in this case of an outbuilding or an annexe presents, in my view, a reasonable alternative. It would be conveniently located and could prove attractive to residents to read, study or simply sit in quiet surroundings. In this respect the appellant brought to my attention another property1 in [site address] where an outside garden room was brought into the planning equation.

However, as I saw, the outbuilding is in poor condition with a corrugated metal roof, and little or no information has been provided to demonstrate how the building could be brought up to a habitable standard. Moreover, part of the outbuilding shown on the appellant’s existing and proposed drawings no longer exists. These matters could not, to my mind, be appropriately addressed by the imposition of a condition. But for this, I would have considered a minor departure from the strict application of the wording of the policy to be justified and appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case.

I therefore conclude that it has not been appropriately demonstrated that the scheme would provide sufficient common rooms for its residents, thus harming their future living conditions. Accordingly, a conflict arises with those provisions of LP policy DM23 directed to the provision of common rooms in HMOs.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, but no other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.