Case Reference: 3359187

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 22 April 2025
by C Walker BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12 May 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/W/25/3359187
Newgate House, Newgate, Pontefract WF8 1NB
• 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 Wakefield Metropolitan District
Council.
• The application Ref is 24/01132/FUL.
• The development proposed is House in Multiple Occupation
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The postcode was missing from the application form. Therefore, I have taken this
from the appeal form.
3. The Council amended the description of development from the application form. It
is not clear the appellant agreed to this change. Therefore, I have used the
appellants description but have replaced the abbreviation in the interests of
completeness.
4. The application form indicates there would be 21 bedrooms proposed. I have
determined the appeal on the basis of the floor plans dated July 24. These show
11 proposed bedrooms at ground floor and 12 at first floor, which includes a
bedroom with its own lounge.
Main Issues
5. The main issues in determining this appeal are:
• whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living
conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal living
space;
• the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of
neighbouring properties, with particular regard to general disturbance; and
• highway safety, having regard to parking.
Reasons
Living conditions – future occupiers
6. The appeal property, Newgate House, is a substantial two storey, detached
building originally constructed as a Labour Exchange and last used as office
accommodation but is now stood vacant. The appeal proposal for the change of
use to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), seeks to provide en-suite bedrooms
over two floors with occupants sharing communal kitchens, dining and lounge
facilities on each floor.
7. The Council has adopted guidance on HMO which is contained in a document
entitled ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation: Wakefield Council’s Adopted Standards
2018’ (Adopted Standards). This guidance is used to inform licensing applications,
and whilst it is not a supplementary planning document, it is nevertheless material
to my considerations.
8. The Adopted Standards set out minimum room sizes for shared houses. For up to
5 persons, it guides that kitchens and dining kitchens should be 8m² and 15m²
respectively, with an additional 1.5m² per person for occupancies between 6 and
10 persons. Likewise, living space should be a minimum of 11m² with an additional
2m² per person for occupations between 6 and 10 persons.
9. The Council assert that at ground floor, the kitchen offers 9.8m² of floor space
whereas the combined dining/living area provides for 28m². At first floor they state
the kitchen/diner provides for 22m² and the lounge offers 17m² of floor space.
These figures have not been disputed by the appellant. Based on the number of
bedrooms and their sizes, the Council also contend that there could be up to 40
occupants, given that some bedrooms meet the size for double occupancy.
10. Even based on single occupancy of the bedrooms, the ground floor kitchen should
provide for 17m², whilst the dining/living area should be around 23m². Likewise at
first floor the kitchen/diner should offer 25.5m² and the lounge 23m², taking
account that one of the bedrooms has its own lounge. When compared to the
Adopted Standards, the proposal represents shortfalls for communal living space
across both floors, particularly in the kitchen at ground floor. The situation would
be worsened if the double bedrooms are occupied by two persons.
11. More importantly, it is clear that on both floors, the number of occupants would
exceed the maximum 10 persons that the Adopted Standards state can share a
communal room. Given its high relevance to this appeal, I attribute it significant
weight.
12. The lack of appropriate communal space would mean that occupants would
experience a poor standard of living, with inadequate cooking facilities, an inability
to sit down to dine and limited opportunity to relax at the same time as other
residents. I find that owing to the likely number of residents, which would be at
least 23, the shared facilities by virtue of the small size and quantum would be
grossly inadequate to adequately serve the proposed occupants.
13. This would run counter to the objectives of Paragraph 135 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seeks to create
places that are inclusive and which promote health and well-being, with a high
standard of amenity for existing and future users.
14. I therefore find that the appeal scheme would not provide acceptable living
conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the internal living space.
This conflicts with Policy LP56 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (2024)
(Local Plan) which amongst other things, expects new development to have no
significant detrimental impact on the amenity of prospective users.
Living conditions – neighbouring properties
15. The site lies in an area comprising a variety of uses, including residential
dwellings, with those on Newgate and The Mount opposite being the closest
dwellings to the appeal site. The layout plans show that Newgate House has its
main entrance door facing towards Newgate and The Mount, with a secondary fire
escape door located to its side, facing towards the grassed verge embankment
and pedestrian footbridge crossing the adjacent highway.
16. The Councils concerns relate to the intensity of the use and general disturbance
from the comings and goings from occupants on foot. Noting the scale and nature
of the proposed use, it is reasonable to assume that occupants would each have
different routines, with their comings and goings taking place at different times of
the day and night.
17. With the main entrance directly opposite existing residential properties, there is a
strong likelihood that there would be a high concentration of pedestrian
movements in a position that would cause disturbance to the neighbourhood.
These movements would represent opportunities for congregation outside of the
entrance as residents pass and interact. This is particularly so, given the
inadequate internal space to allow residents to socialise and the inadequate
internal cooking facilities which is likely to necessitate the need for occupants to go
out more to meet their basic needs.
18. Management of the HMO, such as the monitoring of doors by CCTV and daily
inspections by consultants would not reasonably mitigate against this risk.
19. In support of the appeal, the appellant makes the case that the building was
formerly occupied as offices with over 30 personnel and clients attending meetings
by car throughout the day. However, an office use has a completely different
nature as they tend to operate during sociable, daytime hours compared to a HMO
which would be occupied around the clock. Therefore, the impacts are
incomparable and do not alter my view on the harm the proposal would cause to
the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.
20. I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living
conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to
general disturbance. It follows that I am not satisfied that the scheme accords with
Policy LP56 of the Local Plan which amongst other things, expects development to
have no significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Highway safety and parking
21. Policy LP27 of the Local Plan requires demonstration that developments can be
accessed conveniently and safely. Amongst other things, it requires development
to provide a level of parking provision appropriate to the proposal and its location
(applying the agreed maximum standards set out in current guidance), ensuring
that such provision is located in safe and accessible locations. The Street Design
Guide: Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD) sets out that parking
standards for a HMO should provide 0.5 spaces per bedroom.
22. The plans forming this appeal do not explicitly show the provision of any on-site
parking. However, I observed during my site visit that on-site parking is available
within the appeal site for 10 vehicles. The appellant asserts that the existing
parking, 10 spaces according to the application form, would be unaffected by their
development.
23. Whilst access to the parking spaces would be possible, not all spaces, particularly
those to the north of the building, represent convenient parking due to the limited
manoeuvring space available, and with cars likely to block one another in. The
availability of parking for residents is therefore likely to be lower than the 10
existing spaces.
24. Nevertheless, whilst the parking provision would be below the SPD expectations,
these are maximum standards. I am also mindful that this is guidance, not policy,
such that the weight I attach to it is moderate. Moreover, the appeal site has good
pedestrian links with the town centre where there are community facilities,
services, public transport links and employment opportunities. Consequently, the
site is in a highly sustainable location where future occupiers would be within an
easy walk of services and facilities and more likely to attract non-car users.
25. Additionally, future residents would be aware of the limited parking provision
before choosing to take occupancy. In any event, I observed a public car park
close to the appeal site which could provide parking for residents if required.
Overall, I consider that the parking arrangements would be adequate to serve the
proposed development and these matters attract significant weight in my view,
outweighing any conflict with the SPD.
26. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the development would result in a
displacement of cars parking on the roadside.
27. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in
unacceptable highway safety harm having regard to parking. In this regard I do not
find conflict with Policies LP27 or LP56 of the Local Plan, which together seek to
ensure that development proposals can be accessed conveniently and safely and
by modes of transport other than the car. Further they require proposals to
prioritise access arrangements and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists over
vehicles.
Other Matters
28. As the appeal site is located within a Conservation Area (CA), I have been mindful
of the statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservations) Act 1990 that requires me to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. However, the proposal does not involve any external physical
alterations or development. Accordingly, I find that the character and appearance
of the CA would be preserved in this instance.
29. The appeal scheme would add to the choice of housing stock available for
residents of Wakefield, which is a benefit that weighs in its favour, along with its
highly sustainable location. However, this would be at the expense of the living
conditions of both future and existing residents, which outweigh the benefits in this
case.
Conclusion
30. Notwithstanding the lack of harm identified in respect of parking and highway
safety, I find significant adverse effects in respect of both future occupiers and
existing neighbouring residents. Therefore, for the above reasons, having had
regard to the development plan as a whole, the Framework and all other matters
raised, the appeal fails.
C Walker
INSPECTOR