Appeal 6002705

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission ref P/25/0638/2 for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) at [site address] granted on 20 June 2025 by Charnwood Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 3 and substituting for it the following condition:

No more than 3 bedrooms shall be provided in the HMO hereby permitted.

The council referred to policies in its emerging Local Plan in its reason for applying the disputed condition. That plan has now been adopted, and the Charnwood Local Plan 2004 and the [name] have been revoked. Accordingly, I have determined this appeal in accordance with the new Local Plan.

Planning permission was granted for conversion of the appeal property to a house in multiple occupation (HMO). A HMO in Use Class C4 can typically be occupied by up to 6 people unless a restriction is imposed on the number of occupants, as is the case here.

The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable and necessary having regard to the amenity of occupiers of the property and the provision of sufficient off-street parking.

The parties agree that the 3 bedrooms each measure between 12 and [address] metres. The property has a separate lounge and kitchen, and these would be shared between residents. The council’s Space standards for HMOs guidance document seeks that where is a shared living room any double bedroom in an HMO should be a minimum of [address] metres. Each bedroom would therefore accord with this standard.

The council’s Space standards for HMOs guidance document sets out minimum room sizes that are expected of common living rooms and kitchens. There is no evidence to suggest any deficiency in the size of either of these rooms in the appeal property.

The driveway and parking area to the front of the house is large enough to accommodate more than 3 vehicles. However, it is not clear that it is wide enough to do so without vehicles being parked in a way that would obstruct movement. Each room in an HMO is occupied independently of the others, and each car parked on site should be able to drive into and out of a parking space without restriction. Furthermore, the site narrows significantly towards the highway boundary so that manoeuvring of vehicles would be restricted near to the site entrance.

The Highways consultee response to the application notes that 3 parking spaces would be sought as a minimum for an HMO of up to 6 residents. There is no suggestion that the HMO would be occupied by more than 6 residents. The parking provision on site would be sufficient for the minimum requirement and therefore suitable for more than 3 residents, provided that clear access was maintained for the occupiers of each bedroom.

There would therefore be no conflict with policies H7 and T3 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037. Taken together these support proposals for HMOs which provide car parking in accordance with the scale of development and do not cause detriment to the amenity of the street. It would also accord with the council’s spaces standards for HMOs as set out above. Consequently, having regard to the amenity of occupiers of the property and the provision of sufficient off-street parking, the condition is neither reasonable nor necessary in its present form. However, a condition limiting the number of bedrooms to match the number of parking spaces shown on the submitted plans is both reasonable and necessary to ensure that accessible on-site parking is provided for the occupiers of each room.

The main parties have referred to the council’s HMO licensing standards and commented on what level of occupancy may be accepted at the property. However, these are not planning standards so attract very little weight in my determination of this appeal. A licence is needed to operate an HMO but this is a separate requirement independent of any grant of planning permission.

The appellant has suggested that the property could be extended to provide additional accommodation or facilities. Such proposals fall outside the scope of this appeal and would be for the council to assess on their merits if brought forward.

Residents have expressed concerns about the potential for additional noise and disturbance arising from the proposed development. No concerns were expressed by the council on this point in seeking to limit the number of occupants of the HMO. As the property is a relatively small and detached bungalow I see no reason to disagree as the level of occupancy is unlikely to significantly exceed that which would be typical if a house of this size were to be occupied by a single family.

Concerns were also expressed about the effect of the development on the character of the area. The council did not raise any concerns about this in their submissions. The site lies outside, but on the boundary of, the Ashby Conservation Area. Within this area the council’s Conservation Area Appraisal states that the late Victoria character predominates, with many notable buildings including largely untouched Edwardian terraces. The appeal property is a detached bungalow not noted for any historic significance. As there would be no change to the external appearance of the property, and it would remain in residential use, there is nothing to lead me to disagree with the council’s conclusion.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed and condition No 3 is deleted and replaced as set out above.