Appeal 6001519

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of house to 4 bedroom HMO at [site address] , Farnworth, Bolton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20854/25, subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the internal space.

The appeal relates to the change of use of a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling to a 4-bedroom House in [name] (HMO). The proposal would create 3 bedrooms at first floor and 1 bedroom at ground floor, each with their own en-suite. The ground floor accommodation would also include a shared living/dining room and separate shared kitchen.

The area is covered by an Article 4 Direction which removes permitted development rights for the change of use of residential dwellings (Use Class C3) into small HMOs (Use Class C4) and came into effect in June 2025. The removal of permitted development rights does not suggest that all HMOs are inappropriate, only that proposals should be assessed against the development plan and other material considerations.

The development plan policies set out within the Council’s decision do not specify minimum standards for HMOs. However, the Council has referred to the nationally described space standard (NDSS), setting out that the development would fail to comply with the overall internal space requirements for a 4-bedroom, 5-person dwelling.

The Council has not raised any specific concerns about the size or usability of the bedrooms or their en-suite facilities, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that these would lead to poor living conditions for future occupants. Concern has been raised relating to the size of the kitchen. As the HMO would house just 4 residents, any waiting time to use the kitchen, caused by all occupants being unable to use it simultaneously, is unlikely to be significant.

Furthermore, the proposal also includes a separate shared living and dining area that is large enough to realistically accommodate all occupants at the same time. Communal space in HMOs is intended to ensure that all occupants have the opportunity to dine and socialise in a shared environment, supporting their wellbeing and helping to reduce isolation. The proposed layout would provide suitable communal facilities for the number of intended occupants.

Although the development would not meet the minimum internal floor area required by the NDSS, those standards apply to a 4-bedroom, 5-person dwelling and are therefore not directly relevant to this proposal, which is for a 4-person HMO. Whilst the Council contends that 4 unrelated adults may need more space to live comfortably than a family, the evidence before me does not indicate that the accommodation would be cramped or overcrowded.

I conclude that the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the internal space. The proposal therefore complies with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is socially inclusive, functional and convenient and offering a high level of amenity. Whilst Policy CG4 of [name] (2011) has also been referenced within the Council’s decision, this does not specifically relate to future occupants of proposed development and is therefore not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, I find no conflict with this policy.

Interested parties have expressed concerns about the loss of family housing and questioned whether there is a need for an HMO in this location. They have also raised concerns that this could lead to increased noise, disturbance, crime and anti-social behaviour, potentially harming residential character, community cohesion and a sense of belonging. Additional concerns relate to increased traffic and parking pressure, waste provision, loss of privacy through overlooking and pressure on local services.

These concerns are largely speculative, and I have no substantive evidence before me to support them. Although the Council has introduced an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights for converting a dwellinghouse into an HMO, the development plan contains no specific policies protecting family homes or restricting HMOs. In terms of traffic and parking, there is no clear reason to suspect that a small HMO of the type proposed would generate any material increase in vehicular flows or on-street parking demand. Regarding overlooking, the appeal relates to an existing dwelling, and no new windows are proposed. The proposal would not therefore result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring residents. Furthermore, the Council has not raised objections in relation to these matters, and I see no reason to reach different conclusions.

Comments have also been made about the potential impact of the proposal on local house prices. Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, rather than the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of neighbouring properties. A further concern has been raised about compliance with Building Regulations. This falls under a separate regulatory regime and does not form part of my considerations in determining this planning appeal.

Whilst some interested party correspondence indicates that work has commenced in respect of the development, the proposal is for a change of use of the appeal property and there is no clear evidence to lead me to consider that the proposed HMO use has commenced. I have therefore included the standard time condition and, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The Council has recommended planning conditions to be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the context of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance and amended where necessary in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

I agree that a condition requiring the number of occupants to be restricted to 4 would be reasonable and necessary as more occupants could lead to unacceptable living conditions. This would also address interested parties’ concerns that the HMO could be occupied by a greater number of people. Whilst a breach of this condition may be difficult to detect, such detection would not be unreasonably challenging based on evidence such as that which could be gathered from visits to the property. I therefore consider that a condition to this effect would be enforceable.

A condition requiring secure cycle storage would also be reasonable and necessary to ensure that sufficient secure space is made available and to encourage more sustainable modes of transport. I have amended the Council’s draft wording to require details to be provided to and approved by the Council, to ensure that the storage facility is appropriate to meet the needs of the occupants. It is also necessary that the cycle storage is provided prior to the first use of the HMO so that it is available upon occupation. The officer’s report also included a suggested condition relating to details and provision of a bin store. Mindful of concerns raised by interested parties regarding the management of waste, and the nature of the proposed use, I consider that a condition would be reasonable and necessary to ensure that appropriate bin storage facilities are provided prior to the first occupation of the development.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (scale 1:1250); BA/PL/25/001 (Existing and [name] and Elevations); and BA/PL/25/003 (Proposed Site Layout).

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of a covered secure cycle store for a minimum of 4 bicycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The store shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the use is commenced and shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of a bin store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved store shall be installed before the use is commenced and shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.

The house in multiple occupation hereby permitted shall be occupied by no more than 4 persons at any one time.