Case Reference: 3352804

Costs Decision
Site visit made on 28 January 2025
by C Livingstone MA(SocSci) (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/W/24/3352804
9 Clifden Road, Hackney, London E5 0LL
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by [APPELLANT] for a full award of costs against the Council of the London
Borough of Hackney.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a ground floor 3m
wrap-around extension and mansard roof extension, as well the change of use from a dwellinghouse
to a large HMO 7 units.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. Paragraph 049 of the PPG indicates that local planning authorities will be at risk of
a substantive award being made against them for, amongst other things, the
preventing or delaying of development which should clearly be permitted, having
regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other
material considerations, failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for
refusal on appeal, vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s
impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis and refusing planning
permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions.
4. The appellant has set out that the Council has failed to attribute weight to the
realistic and legitimate fallback option. The appellant also asserts that the Council
acted unreasonably in refusing the development due to the absence of a suitable
agreement to demonstrate affordable rent levels or to secure the development as
car free.
5. The Council do not dispute that the appellant has permitted development rights to
convert the property to a six person House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). This is a
legitimate fallback position that should have been afforded weight in the
determination of the application.
6. The failure to give proper consideration to the fallback position resulted in them
failing to properly evaluate the application. This inaccurate assertion had a
significant influence on the Council’s case and subsequent reasons for refusal,
which also resulted in a failure to make an objective assessment of the
development overall. It therefore amounts to unreasonable behaviour.
7. In respect to refusing the application due to a failure to demonstrate that proposed
rent levels would be suitable for people with low incomes, and securing the
development as car free; I do not consider that the Council acted unreasonably.
The absence of suitable information and planning agreements in relation to these
matters is contrary to Policies LP22 and LP45 of Hackney A Place for Everyone
Hackney Local Plan 2033 Strategic Planning Adopted July 2020 (HLP), which seek
to ensure that HMOs meet an identified need for housing that is affordable for
individuals on a low income and new development encourages sustainable modes
of transport. In light of this, a planning condition would not be a suitable mechanism
for securing these agreements.
Conclusion
8. I have carefully considered the points raised and the evidence before me, I
therefore find that unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated
only with respect to the Council’s first reason for refusal. This reason for refusal
related to the loss of family housing and in making its assessment the Council
failed to give proper consideration to the fallback position, which is the applicants
permitted development right to change the use of the property to an HMO with the
capacity to accommodate six people. A partial award of costs is therefore justified.
Costs Order
9. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972
and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all
other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Council of
the London Borough of Hackney shall pay [APPELLANT], the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision, limited to those costs
incurred in contesting the first of the Council’s reasons for refusal, which related to
the loss of family housing.
10. The applicant is now invited to submit to the Council of the London Borough of
Hackney, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with
a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. If the parties cannot agree on the
amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by
the Senior Courts Office is enclosed.
C Livingstone
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 28 January 2025
by C Livingstone MA(SocSci) (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/W/24/3352804
9 Clifden Road, Hackney, London E5 0LL
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of
Hackney.
• The application Ref is 2024/1042.
• The development proposed is for the erection of a ground floor 3m wrap-around extension and
mansard roof extension, as well the change of use from a dwellinghouse to a large HMO 7 units.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs in relation to this appeal was made by the appellant against
the Council of the London Borough of Hackney. This application is the subject of a
separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 12
December 2024. As the changes do not materially affect the main issues in this
case, the parties have not been invited to comment further. Where references are
made to paragraph numbers of the Framework, these are references to the most
recent version.
4. The description of the development has been taken from the application form.
However, the reference to the proposal being a resubmission and details of the
planning history of the site have been removed as they are not an act of
development.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are:
• the effect of the proposed development on the supply of family housing;
• whether it has been demonstrated that proposed rent levels would be suitable for
people on low incomes; and
• whether the proposal would encourage sustainable modes of transport with
regard to parking provision.
Reasons
Family Housing
6. The appeal property is located in a mainly residential area, with good access to
schools and public parks. The appeal relates to a five bedroom, mid-terrace house
in a residential street of largely two storey, terraced housing. The development
would allow for the use of the building as a large HMO with bedrooms on the
ground floor, first floor and in the attic; and a communal living area on the ground
floor.
7. The size and configuration of the house and garden mean that it would presently be
suitable for family accommodation including those with young children. The effect
of the change of use is that the house is no longer available for accommodation on
such a basis. While the Council recognises the role HMOs play in meeting housing
demand, they note that there is significant need for family housing. The conversion
of existing family homes to HMOs further reduces their availability.
8. In order to ensure proposals for new HMOs are suitable Policy LP22 of the
Hackney A Place for Everyone Hackney Local Plan 2033 Strategic Planning
Adopted July 2020 (HLP) supports proposals for new HMOs only where they meet
specific criteria. Criterion i of LP22 states that proposals for new HMOs are
acceptable only where they do not result in the loss of existing housing suitable for
family accommodation.
9. As detailed above the appeal property as existing is a family home. The effect of
the change of use would be that the house is no longer available for
accommodation on such a basis. While the role HMOs play in meeting housing
demand is recognised, there is also a significant need for family housing; and this is
reflected in the Council’s policy. The conversion of existing family homes to HMOs
further reduces their availability.
10. For the reasons detailed above the proposed development would have a harmful
effect on the supply of family housing. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to
Policy LP22 of the HLP, which allow for new HMOs only where they would not
result in the loss of existing housing suitable for family occupation.
11. In reaching the above conclusion I do not find conflict with Policy H8 of the London
Plan 2021 as this policy relates to the demolition and replacement of existing
housing.
Affordable Housing
12. In order to meet an identified need for affordable housing in the borough criterion iv
of Policy LP22 of the HLP also requires that new HMOs would be supported where
the rent levels would be suitable for those on low incomes. Within paragraph 7.31
of the HLP the supporting information states that proposed shared housing
development will be subject to a planning agreement to ensure rents for rooms
remain affordable for individuals earning a low-income in the long term.
13. In the absence of a completed planning agreement to demonstrate that proposed
rent levels would be suitable for people on low incomes, I have no mechanism for
ensuring that the development would meet the requirements of criterion iv of Policy
LP22. As a planning agreement is required in order to demonstrate compliance with
policy a planning condition would not be a suitable mechanism for securing this
information.
14. For the reasons detailed above it has not been demonstrated that proposed rent
levels would be suitable for people on low incomes. Therefore, the HMO would be
contrary to Policy LP22 of the HLP which requires that proposed rent levels for new
HMOs would be suitable for people with low incomes.
Sustainable Transport
15. The application site is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ), which is indicative of
a level of parking stress as existing. I also noted on my site visit that available
on-street parking spaces were limited.
16. Whilst future occupants may not be dependent on private cars for day to day
transport requirements they might want to own and park a vehicle for those
journeys that aren’t possible or practical on public transport. This would exacerbate
the level of parking stress in the area and have a detrimental impact on the safe
and efficient operation of the local highway network.
17. There would be insufficient space within the plot to provide off-street parking and
the proposed dwelling would be required to be car-free. Therefore, a planning
obligation would be required to prevent the HMO from being occupied by
individuals that hold a parking permit.
18. The appellant has stated that they would be willing to enter into an agreement to
prevent future occupants from applying for a parking permit. However, in the
absence of a completed planning obligation to secure the development as car free,
I have no mechanism for securing the required restriction.
19. For the reasons detailed above the proposal would fail to encourage sustainable
modes of transport with regard to parking provision. Therefore, the proposal fails to
comply with the requirements of Policy LP 45 of the HLP which requires that all
new development is car free; with on-site parking limited to specific exceptional
circumstances; and also minimises the impact of car based travel on the operation
of the road network.
Other Considerations
20. The appellant asserts that they have permitted development rights to change the
use of the property from a dwellinghouse to a House of Multiple Occupation for up
to 6 persons (Use Class C4). I have no reason to doubt that the development would
be carried out if I were to dismiss this appeal. As such, the loss of a family home
would more than likely occur either way. This is a significant consideration in favour
of the proposal, which I will return to in the planning balance.
Other Matters
21. The appeal scheme before me is a resubmission of a preceding application refused
by the Council1. I appreciate that the appellant has attempted to overcome the
concerns previously raised. However, this development would still result in a
proposal that would be contrary to the development plan for the reasons I have
outlined.
1 2024/0030
22. The Council raised no concerns regarding the living conditions of future occupants
and the occupants of neighbouring properties. Based on the evidence before me I
have no reason to disagree with the Council. However, an absence of harm in
these respects are neutral factors weighing neither for nor against the proposal.
23. The appellant asserts that there have been several appeal decisions where the
existence of permitted development rights to allow for the conversion of a dwelling
house to a small HMO was given substantial weight. The full details of any previous
appeals where the Inspector has taken this approach have not been provided.
While I cannot be certain that the circumstances that applied in these instances are
the same as the appeal before me, as detailed above I have taken a similar
approach.
Planning Balance
24. The Framework states that the planning system should be genuinely plan led. The
development plan is the starting point for decision making and I must make my
decision in accordance with it unless other considerations indicate otherwise. In this
case, the conflict with local policy in respect of the loss of a family home to the
housing stock draws the scheme into conflict with the development plan read as a
whole.
25. However, the existence of permitted development rights to change the use of the
property from a dwellinghouse to House of Multiple Occupation for up to 6 persons
means that the loss of a family home would occur either way. In these
circumstances, the fallback position is a consideration which must outweigh the
harm that I have identified. It indicates that I should make a decision which is not in
accordance with the development plan in this regard.
26. Notwithstanding the above, I have found that it has not been demonstrated that
proposed rent levels would be suitable for people with low incomes, and it would
fail to encourage sustainable modes of transport with regard to parking provision.
27. HMOs provide much-needed housing within the city. However, they need to be
subject to careful control in order to ensure that they meet an identified need for low
cost housing and encourage sustainable modes of transport; which would also
prevent increased parking pressure. In this case the benefit of providing an HMO in
this location is outweighed by the harm.
Conclusion
28. The development would conflict with the development plan. This conflict is not
outweighed by other considerations. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
C Livingstone
INSPECTOR