Appeal 6004124

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from dwelling house (Use Class C3) to 6-bed HMO (Use Class C4) at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/03369/PA, dated 21 July 2025, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In relation to the Council’s reason for refusal concerning the density of houses in multiple occupation (HMO); the Council in their appeal submission have stated as per an updated calculation by the Council on 9th March 2025, the appeal site would fall below the 10% HMO density criteria in Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham: Development Plan Document 2021 (the DPD).

In consideration of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England: For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026, an inspector will make their decision based on the circumstances at the time they make their decision. As such the Council has now confirmed the proposal is compliant with criteria 1.a. of Policy DM11 of the DPD, and I have no reason to consider otherwise. As such my decision has focused on the areas that are still contested.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the provision of family housing within the area.

To demonstrate the development would “result in the loss of an existing use that makes an important contribution to other Council objectives, strategies and policies” and therefore conflict with Policy DM11 of the DPD, the Council has submitted the [name] and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2022 (the HEDNA). The HEDNA highlights the city-wide undersupply of 4+ bedroom dwellings since 2011/12, whilst also demonstrating there has been a considerable supply of 1-bedroom dwellings. The HEDNA indicates a city-wide need for 4+ bedroom dwellings including in the central region where the appeal site is located. Although the HEDNA is not site specific, it does provide evidence of why the retention of family homes is important in the wider area.

In contrast the appellant has submitted information from various property market commentators, however, these show information in relation to affordability rather than lack of demand as a family housing or demand for HMOs in the area. The appellant has also submitted information on the demand for ‘Co-Living’; however, it is clear from the information provided that this would differ to the level of accommodation provided in the appeal site even if a high standard of finish is achieved.

To demonstrate the lack of demand for the property as family housing, the appellant has submitted details of the property being marketed for in excess of 6 months. The Council challenges whether the asking price was reasonable, as required by the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document 2022 (the SPD). A failure to market the property at a reasonable price could result in a reduced level of enquiries and therefore obscure the true demand for the property for family housing.

The appellants submissions have justified the marketed rental price with a number of properties offered for rent within the city. The Council have raised a range of concerns with inconsistencies within the marketing information, and to support their argument the Council have highlighted a number of properties with lower rental figures than the marketed rental price of the appeal site.

I have been given limited information by either party in relation to these comparable properties; however, it is apparent that several of the appellants comparables do not relate well to the appeal site. The appeal site was marketed as a 4-bedroom property on Rightmove, whilst the appellants comparables are for a greater number of bedrooms with most in different areas of the city, which will have differing rental market rates. As such the comparables in the marketing information do not demonstrate the marketed rental price of the property is reasonable, however conversely, they also do not demonstrate the price is unreasonable.

The Council’s comparable properties are closer in proximity to the appeal site, yet there is limited information again to determine how directly comparable they are. Internal images of the property on South Loop Park do appear comparable to that proposed with the appeal site, however this is only one example.

I appreciate the appellants comments that they have sought a high standard of finish, as such it could be expected that the property would derive a higher rental price. I do also appreciate that the information has been provided by a local estate agent with knowledge of the area, which would comprise a suitable person in a relevant profession as required by the SPD. There was interest and offers were received on the property, as such there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the marketed rental price was unreasonable. I also note that the demand from enquiries was primarily for the use of the building as a HMO.

From evidence from both main parties the property was marketed on Rightmove for in excess of 6 months. Though the property was marketed prior to the renovations being completed, I do not consider this would discount the entirety of the marketing period prior to completion, as there would commonly be a lead time for a tenancy to start and for someone to arrange their affairs to move from another property. Stock images (images of other finished properties) have been used to market the property whilst it was being renovated, however this is common practice in estate agency to demonstrate the proposed level of finish.

Though the HEDNA demonstrates there is demand for 4+ bedroom housing in the area, the appellant has submitted marketing evidence demonstrating a lack of demand for the appeal site as a family dwelling in accordance with the SPD. The marketing evidence also demonstrates a level of demand for the property as a HMO. The appeal site also meets all of the safeguarding criteria in relation to location and density of HMOs within Policy DM11, such that it would not lead to an over intensification of HMOs within the immediate surrounding area.

I have taken into account the two appeals1 highlighted by the Council, however I note that there is no reference in these appeals to marketing evidence as is provided for this appeal, so I find they carry limited weight and do not lead me to change my view.

I conclude the proposal would not harmfully affect the provision of family housing within the area. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM11 of the DPD and Policy TP35 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seek to control the change of use of dwelling houses to HMOs, and to ensure sufficient justification is provided when development proposals include the loss of housing to alternative uses. The proposal would also accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which advises that communities be provided with an appropriate mix of housing types, which the evidence demonstrates.

An interested party has raised concerns in relation to noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour. I have not been provided with any evidence that the proposal would give rise to an increase in anti-social behaviour, nor noise and disturbance. I note that [name] do not object to the proposal, nor have the Council found the proposals impact would be unacceptable in this regard. I have also imposed conditions in relation to security, occupancy and management of the proposal to help mitigate any impact. As such I have not found the matter determinative in the appeal.

The Council has provided a list of suggested planning conditions, which I have considered against paragraph 57 of the Framework, and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). As a result, I have amended the wording of some in consideration of the six tests within the Framework and PPG.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2). I have also imposed a condition prior to occupation of the building requiring details of the cycle storage to be provided within the site (3), which has been included to support the use of 1 APP/P4605/W/24/3343609 & APP/P4605/W/22/3300940 sustainable modes of transport. I have also added a condition (4) requiring details of CCTV, lighting and secure access in the interests of improving safety for the occupants. Finally, conditions 5 and 6, requiring the submission of a management plan and restricting the occupancy of the property to six people, in order to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

I have not included a condition in relation to locks to the bedroom doors as this is an internal fitting and therefore would not constitute development under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In consideration of the six tests this would therefore not be enforceable.

For the reasons given above the proposal accords with the development plan when read a whole. No material considerations raised indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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 referenced; Location Plan (dated 21 July 2025, [name] ([name]-24.12.10), [name] ([name]-24.12.11- A).

Notwithstanding condition 2, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the provision for secure and covered cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development and thereafter maintained.

Notwithstanding condition 2, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of security measures (including CCTV, external lighting, and controlled access to the building) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development and thereafter maintained.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a HMO Management Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be adhered to thereafter. The HMO Management Plan shall cover the following matters: i. Controls to mitigate noise and disturbance ii. Refuse and recycling arrangements iii. Property maintenance requirements

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied by more than 6 persons at any one time.