Despite a converted storage room offering “poor living conditions” according to council officers, an appeal has allowed the HMO to expand.

Watford Borough Council blocked a landlord from adding another bedroom to a six-person house of multiple occupancy(HMO) in Westland Road in March.

Officers said that the submission did not include dimensioned floorplans, which made it hard to judge how much space there was, but thought the extra bedroom would be too small.

Currently used for storage, it has a sloping ceiling and officers ruled the likely low headroom “would make poor living conditions”. The report also referenced other existing bedrooms appearing small and having poor privacy as well as bin collection concerns.

Permission was therefore refused on March 8, before an appeal was launched in May.

Last week, the planning inspectorate published its decision allowing the appeal - meaning the conversion can go ahead.

The inspector found that on a site visit they noted that the storage room “easily accommodated a double bed, bedside tables and desk area with a window overlooking the garden”.

It apparently “does not feel cramped” and “would provide good living conditions for a future occupier”.

References to other rooms were judged to be outside the focus of the appeal as they are already in use and would not change.

The judgement added that sufficient recycling and waste bin space could be provided for a second occupant.

Woodford Road HMO appeal

However, yesterday (October 22), the planning inspectorate took the opposite stance on a very similar plan in Watford.

The borough council blocked a proposal to expand a Woodford Road HMO from six bedrooms to seven in December and this decision was also appealed.

Council officers had said they had concerns over the “quality of accommodation” as well as refuse arrangements. This time the same planning inspector agreed.

They assessed that the proposed extra room would not offer enough room for furniture, storage, and belongings. “This room would therefore provide poor living conditions for a future occupier,” the judgement added.

On a visit, it was also found that the layout of the building did not correspond with the plans submitted.

The appeal was dismissed.