Appeal 6007569

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue for this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the provision of family housing in the area.

The proposal would subdivide the property into 2 one-bedroomed flats; one at ground floor, incorporating a lengthy single storey rear projection to the dwelling, and the other across the first and second floors of the property. The substantial rear garden would be shared by the occupiers of both flats.

The council’s evidence includes the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (2022) which identifies an undersupply of 4+ bedroom houses since 2011/12 and a city-wide need for 4+ bedroom houses of all tenures. Furthermore, the appeal site lies within the Hall Green sub area where the evidence shows a need for larger homes in the market housing sector. Whilst the HEDNA was published in 2022, I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that its findings are no longer of relevance.

The HEDNA therefore provides evidence that the retention of 4+ bedroom properties is important in meeting the needs of the city’s population. Sections of the HEDNA identify the requirement for smaller units of accommodation and it recommends proposals for [name] schemes. However, the additional requirement for other types of housing does not negate the evidenced need in the HEDNA for larger 4+ bedroom family dwellings.

Policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) confirms best use will be made of the existing housing stock in the city. This will include preventing the loss to other uses (through conversion or redevelopment) of housing which is in good condition, or could be restored to good condition at reasonable cost. The policy allows the loss of such residential accommodation only if there are good planning justifications or an identified social need for the proposed alternative use. Policy TP27 requires that new housing contributes to the creation of sustainable neighbourhoods, including through the provision of a wide choice of housing sizes, types and tenures to ensure balanced communities. Policy TP30 supports this aim, requiring new housing to meet identified needs.

The appellant contends that the private rental market in the city is diverse, driven by demand from manual workers, older single people and students and that in delivering small rental accommodation, the proposal would reflect this demand, but has provided no evidence to support this position. However, I must be led by the evidence, which indicates there is a demonstrable need for family housing in the area. Whilst the proposal would continue to provide residential accommodation, the loss of the 4-bedroom appeal property to smaller, 1-bed flats would comprise the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to the council’s objectives for maintaining balanced and sustainable communities through providing housing sizes which address needs.

The appellant relies on an appeal decision in May 2025 (APP/P4605/W/24/3352739) in which the Inspector finds that the council’s [name] position (HLS) stood at 3.65 years. It is suggested that given this shortfall, the relevant policies of the development plan should be deemed out of date, and that this should extend to the evidence in the HEDNA. It is advanced that the balance set out in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) should be engaged given the suggested shortfall in the HLS position, and that this should weigh in favour of the appeal.

In dealing with the appeal, the Planning Practice Guidance requires that I have regard to the latest available evidence on the council’s 5-year HLS position. I am directed to the council’s published data to the end of 2024-2025 which demonstrates the latest HLS position to be 6.45 years. This evidence was not available to the Inspector in the case above. Given that the council can demonstrate it is exceeding the requirements of the Framework in this respect, the balance in paragraph 11 does not apply here.

The appellant also draws my attention to sections of the 2025 consultation draft of revisions to The Framework. I attribute very little weight to these emerging policies given that the Government’s response to the consultation has yet to be published and the draft Framework is liable to change as a result of the consultation exercise.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the provision of family housing in the area. It would conflict with criteria e) of Policy DM12 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021) and Policy TP35 of the BDP, the aims of which I have previously outlined. Whilst not quoted in the council’s reason for refusal, Policies TP27 and TP30 are also referred to within the evidence. There would also be conflict with these policies given the aims of the policies as previously outlined.

Interested parties have referenced alleged unauthorised use(s) of the property. These do not inform or influence my decision on the appeal, and any unauthorised use of the property is a matter for the council.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no considerations that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.