Appeal 6003005

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed House in [name] (“HMO”) would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to whether living and amenity space would be adequate in terms of size and functionality.

No [site address] is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling in a predominantly residential neighbourhood close to Middlesbrough town centre. The appellant is seeking permission for the use of the property as an HMO with four bedrooms. There would be two bedrooms on the ground floor, and two on the first floor, all with an ensuite shower room; there would be a shared kitchen on the ground floor, and a shared living room on the first floor.

The appeal property is in an area covered by an “Article 4 direction” removing permitted development rights for a change of use from a dwellinghouse within Use Class C3 to a “smaller” HMO within Use Class C4, which (to the best of my understanding) came into effect on 8 February 2025. The internal alterations necessary to support the change of use have already been carried out, though that fact in itself has had no significant bearing on decision in this appeal; I understand that the property currently has only two tenants.

The Council’s 2019 Interim Policy on the Conversion and Sub-Division of Buildings for [name] (“the Interim Policy”) sets out the requirements for such developments. Among other things it says that the building should be capable of providing an acceptable standard of accommodation, with adequate amenity, and that it should meet the space standards set out in the nationally described space standard (“the NDSS”)1. I have also had regard to the Council’s Houses in [name] in Middlesbrough guidance on accommodation standards (“the HMO 1 guidance”) which, while it relates to the housing licencing regime rather than the development plan, nevertheless provides additional useful advice, and sets out reasonable minimum space and amenity requirements, for HMO schemes.

The NDSS requires that a single bedroom should have a minimum floor area of 7.5m2. The HMO guidance is less generous; for a “[name]” HMO – that is, where houses are occupied on a shared basis as would be the case here – with a separate living room it says that a one-person bedroom should be at least 6.51m2. Bedroom 2 on the ground floor would have a floor area of 5.5m 2, and bedroom 4 on the first floor would have a floor area of 6m2; those two rooms would fall short of both the NDSS and HMO guidance minimum standards. The appellant suggests that the floor area of the ensuite rooms (2m2 for bedroom 2, and 2.5m2 for bedroom

should also be taken into account, but that approach is not one which would be normal in my professional experience – ensuites do not in themselves provide useful bedroom space for residents.

The communal kitchen and living room would each measure around 8m 2. The HMO guidance advises that a kitchen shared by up to five people should be at least 7m 2. While the floor area of the kitchen would exceed that minimum, the narrow galley layout mean that it would be very cramped if more than one or two occupiers wished to use it for preparing food at the same time, and it does not appear that there would be space for dining. The kitchen would also need to be kept reasonably clear to allow occupiers to get to and from the cycle storage facility in the rear yard, as the external access route is via a gated rear alleyway and so would not be a convenient alternative. The living room would not provide space for dining; while the submitted drawings show a settee and chair providing seating for four people, the small size of the room means that it would be likely to feel uncomfortably full if that many people were actually to use it for any significant period.

The Council also noted that the occupier of bedroom 1 on the ground floor would not have adequate privacy, as the footway on [address] is directly outside the window. It was evident during my site visit that clear views into that room were possible from the street, so I agree that there would be a lack of privacy. Were the communal spaces within the property more generous this would not necessarily be a significant failing of the scheme, as there would be attractive alternative spaces for the occupier of that room to relax or socialise. On this point I note the findings in an appeal decision relating to a proposal for a three-bedroom HMO at Acton Street2 referred to in the Council’s officer report, and I do not disagree with my colleague’s reasoning in allowing that appeal. Here, however, the more intense use of the property and the shortcomings I have described above mean that the lack of privacy in the front ground floor bedroom adds to my overall concern about living conditions. This indicates that my reaching a different decision is justified.

Overall, two of the bedrooms would be very small, and the size and layout of the communal rooms means that they would be cramped or crowded spaces, and unfit for their intended purpose. Because of this, I conclude that the proposed HMO would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore conflict with Policy DC1 of the 2008 [name], which among other things seeks to ensure that all development is of high quality, with a high standard of amenity, and with the Interim Policy, the principal relevant requirements of which I have summarised above. There would also be conflict with 2 [name]: APP/W0734/W/25/3365937 the requirements of Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which among other things seek to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I also find that the proposed development would conflict with Draft Policy HO9 of the emerging Middlesbrough Local Plan3 which deals with proposals for HMOs and, among other things, seeks to ensure that accommodation provides a good standard of well proportioned, useable living space and amenity for occupiers. I have not been provided with details of that plan’s progress towards adoption, or the extent of any unresolved objections to the draft policy. This conflict on its own therefore carries limited weight in my decision, although this does not affect my

The appellant made several objections relating to the Council’s handling of the proposal, including that it had “unreasonably” required a planning application. However, that element of their complaint appears to relate to the timing of the introduction of the Article 4 direction, and the beginning of the internal works; the planning application for the change of use was made on 4 September 2025 (and registered five days later), it is the appellant’s clearly-stated case that the change of use had not already occurred and that the application was not made retrospectively.

Other matters raised are that the Council did not engage in correspondence relating to compliance with the Building Regulations or to concerns raised by a ward councillor and subsequently addressed by the appellant, and that it has an “unreasonable and blanket approach to HMO applications”, this last because the Council relied on the same wording for its reason for refusal in respect of other HMO proposals at [address] and [address] within the same neighbourhood.

There is no information before me about those other HMO proposals, or the extent to which they may have been comparable to this. In my experience, however, it is not at all unusual for a local planning authority to use a set of standard wordings as a starting point for their decision notices. The officer report, and the reasoning behind the Council’s decision, is clearly related to the specific property and the specific proposal in this appeal. I have determined this appeal based on the planning merits of this particular proposal, taking into account the evidence put before me by both main parties. None of the other matters raised have had a significant bearing on my conclusion.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.