The following is the full text of the decision of the Planning Inspectorate following the appeal against planning permission being refused by Walsall Council lodged by Mr J Haliburton who had converted 250 Stroud Avenue from its previous use as a Doctor’s Surgery into a House in Multiple Occupation for 12 people. It’s not good news as the Inspector thinks it’s OK.

Of particular interest to us is 1 a) of the conditions applied by the Inspector which I have highlighted below. We all know that the developer didn’t hang around as the conversion had been done before the matter even got to the Council’s Planning Committee.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the condition under 1 b)requiring the boundary treatment to be completed within 6 months of the approval letter.

 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from Doctor’s surgery (Class D1) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) at 250 Stroud Avenue, Willenhall, Walsall WV12 4EG in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 15/1845, dated 2 December 2015, and the plans and details submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
a) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Ground floor, 250 Stoud Avenue, Willenhal, WV12 4EG sheet 1 of 2; and First floor, 250 Stoud Avenue, Willenhal, WV12 4EG sheet 2 of 2.
b) Within two months from the date of this decision, details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The details, as approved, shall be implemented on site within 6 months from the date of this decision, or within such other period as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
c) The development hereby approved shall be occupied by no more than 12 tenants at any one time.
d) The parking spaces shown on drawing Location Plan of wv12 4eg shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles for as long as the use hereby granted continues.

The Planning Inspectorate – Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 June 2016
by Rachel Walmsley BSc MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 July 2016
Appeal Ref: APP/V4630/W/16/3143831
250 Stroud Avenue, Willenhall, Walsall WV12 4EG
 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
 The appeal is made by Mr J Haliburton against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.
 The application Ref 15/1845, dated 2 December 2015, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2016.
 The development proposed is the change of use from Doctor’s surgery (Class D1) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from Doctor’s surgery (Class D1) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) at 250 Stroud Avenue, Willenhall, Walsall WV12 4EG in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 15/1845, dated 2 December 2015, and the plans and details submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
a) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Ground floor, 250 Stoud Avenue, Willenhal, WV12 4EG sheet 1 of 2; and First floor, 250 Stoud Avenue, Willenhal, WV12 4EG sheet 2 of 2.
b) Within two months from the date of this decision, details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The details, as approved, shall be implemented on site within 6 months from the date of this decision, or within such other period as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
c) The development hereby approved shall be occupied by no more than 12 tenants at any one time.
d) The parking spaces shown on drawing Location Plan of wv12 4eg shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles for as long as the use hereby granted continues.
Procedural Matters
2. At the time of my site visit the property concerned was in use as a HMO for 12 people. I have based my decision on what I saw on site, together with the submitted plans and details.
Appeal Decision APP/V4630/W/16/3143831
2
Main Issue
3. The main issue raised by this appeal is whether the proposal would result in crime and the fear of crime.
Reasons
4. The Local Planning Authority refused the proposal on the basis that the change of use was considered contrary to Policy H7 of the Local Plan1 and paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek development that promotes safe and accessible environments and where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.
5. The courts have held that there must be some reasonable evidential basis for the fear of crime and adverse effects to be justified.
6. A HMO exists when tenants live together, form more than one household and share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities with other tenants. I find nothing within the evidence before me to suggest that this form of development would result in crime and anti-social behaviour.
7. I note the concerns and anxiety of residents who refer to incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour. These allegations are not, however, supported by evidence and therefore the weight I can give to them in my overall consideration of this appeal is limited.
8. Notwithstanding this, the police have a unique overview and are in a position to assess and predict the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour in their area based on their own service data and experience. To this effect, within the 12 months prior to the Council deciding the application, 5 police incidents had been reported in relation to the appeal site. The details of these incidents are not before me and therefore the severity of them is unknown. However, of the incidents known to the appellant, appropriate action was taken to evict a tenant in November 2015 and since that time, no complaints have been received.
9. The West Midlands Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor/Crime Reduction Officer suggests that if planning permission was granted, poor management and overcrowding would result in anti-social behaviour, crime and safety issues. I will look at each of these matters in turn.
10. With regards to management, the appellant states that tenants of the HMO are issued with a list of House Rules and a copy of the Licence Agreement, both of which commit tenants to approved standards and practices when living in the HMO. Furthermore the appellant confirms that staff are provided with a copy of the Operating Standards. Whilst copies of these documents are before me, they do not relate to the appeal site. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the intentions of the appellant in managing the property well, there is no substantive evidence before me that confirms how the property would be managed.
11. Notwithstanding this, anti-social behaviour resulting from any deficiencies in management should not be tolerated any more than with another form of
1 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: Unitary Development Plan (Adopted March 2005)
Appeal Decision APP/V4630/W/16/3143831
3
residential use. Whilst it is wholly reasonable that the appellant would not wish to entertain bad tenants, Environmental Health and the Police have processes in place to manage and take action against anti-social behaviour and crime. I am satisfied that problems associated with anti-social behaviour would be dealt with by Environmental Health and the Police.
12. In coming to this conclusion I have considered the West Midlands Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor/Crime Reduction Officer’s concern that this type of development and the increasing number of applications being approved…can create a huge drain on ever increasing Police resources. I have no evidence before me, however, that suggests that the proposed change of use could not be supported by existing Police resources and therefore I am minded to consider that the Police could take the appropriate action should a need arise.
13. With regards to overcrowding, the evidence before me points to overcrowding being a problem before the planning application was submitted. Residents have suggested that the property is over-occupied relative to the living and kitchen facilities provided. The Council’s Housing Standards Officer has raised no objections to the standard of the accommodation provided or to 12 people living in the property at any one time. Furthermore the Planning Officer’s report states that the premises are large enough for 12 people. I have no reason to believe, therefore, that the proposed change of use to a HMO for 12 people would amount to an overcrowded property. I consider it reasonable, however, should planning permission be granted, to apply a condition that restricts the HMO to 12 people to avoid any possible problems of overcrowding in the future.
14. Taken as a whole, therefore, the evidence does not point towards a HMO that would result in undue disturbances that would undermine the quality of life for the residents living within the area. Furthermore, in the absence of reasonable evidence to justify the fear of crime and its adverse effects, I find that the proposed development would not result in any significant harm in terms of crime and the fear of crime. As such the proposed development would not be contrary to Policy H7 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 69 of the Framework, the aims of which are noted above.
Other matters
15. I have had regard to the petition submitted to the Council. The petition raises a number of concerns, many of which have been addressed within the main section of this decision. Concerns have also been raised about the impact that high sided vehicles parked on the site and washing hung from the windows would have on the visual appearance of the area. These activities do not appear to be particular features of HMOs rather than what may be reasonably expected within a residential area. Therefore, without any evidence to the contrary, they would not impact on the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.
16. The petition also raises a concern that children could occupy the premises. The Housing Officer reported no evidence of children within the property and there is nothing within the evidence before me to suggest that children would reside in the HMO. Furthermore, should children be present at any time, Social Services would be in a position to take appropriate action as necessary.
Appeal Decision APP/V4630/W/16/3143831
4
17. Close to the appeal site are two properties providing support services for children and young people. Concerns have been raised that anti-social behaviour would jeopardise the safety of the children and young families. In light of my findings, the proposed development would not result in crime and anti-social behaviour and therefore would not pose a threat to the occupiers and users of surrounding properties.
18. The Council raised no objection to the number of parking spaces proposed and I am satisfied that 8 parking spaces for 12 tenants would be sufficient space for tenants to park on site. I note the concerns expressed by the Stroud Avenue Family Centre that tenants do, and could continue to park on their premises. It is outside the scope of any planning permission to control the parking behaviours of tenants; the regulation and enforcement of parking is a matter for traffic attendants and private landowners. Nevertheless, to ensure that adequate parking is maintained within the site, it is reasonable to attach a condition to any planning permission that requires that the proposed parking spaces are kept available for their intended use at all times.
19. It was not evident from my site visit and nor is it apparent from the evidence before me that litter is or should be a problem. Furthermore, there is nothing within the evidence before me to suggest that the HMO should have special measures attributed to it for littering. I therefore find no harm in this regard.
20. I note the lack of amenity space for tenants. The Council, however, did not raise this as a concern as the Council does not require HMOs to provide outdoor space. The proposal would not, therefore, be contrary to Policy or harmful in this regard.
Conditions
21. The Council recommended several conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Planning Policy Practice Guidance and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
22. Being a retrospective planning application for a change of use it is not necessary to include a time commencement condition. I have included a plans condition in the interests of clarity.
23. In the interests of the character of the area and protecting the amenity of the residents of surrounding properties, I have included a condition concerning the approval and implementation of boundary treatment details, a condition limiting the occupation of the premises to 12 people and a condition requiring the retention of the area for parking at all times.
Conclusion
24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would not be contrary to the development plan and therefore the appeal is allowed.
R Walmsley
INSPECTOR