Appeal 6004153

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from six-bed HMO (C4) to seven-bed HMO ([name]) through internal reconfigurations and addition of a rooflight to the front roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/1771, subject to the following conditions:

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: Location plan (scale: 1:1250); NIC-CS-V1-ZZ-DR-A-9911 Revision R05 ([name]); and NIC-CS-V1-ZZ-DR-A-9912 Revision R04 ([name] and Sections).

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until a scheme for the provision of cycle parking for a minimum of 7 bicycles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme has been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.

An application for costs was made by [name] of [name] against Liverpool City Council. This application is the subject of a separate

The Council did not determine the planning application. However, it has indicated that had it been able to issue a decision, it would have refused permission for reasons relating to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties and whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants.

The appellant submitted amended floor plans in October 2025 prior to the submission of the appeal, which made a minor internal change in respect of the kitchen facilities. These have been referenced by the Council within its list of suggested conditions and, as such, I am satisfied that the amendments have been considered by the Council and the parties would not be prejudiced by accepting these plans.

As part of their appeal submission, the appellant has provided further amendments which would alter the internal layout on the second floor, changing the sizes of the bedrooms. The procedural guidance1 explains that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same proposal that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. However, I have considered whether to accept the amended plans.

Having regard to case law, I conclude that, whilst the amendments do not constitute a substantial change to the scheme considered by the Council at the application stage, I am mindful that those who should have been consulted on the changed development have not had the opportunity to make representations. I therefore cannot be certain that accepting the alternative proposal would not be prejudicial to interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal against the amended plans submitted in October 2025.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the shared kitchen facilities and the floor area to head height ratio of bedroom 5.

The appeal relates to a 2-storey end terraced property on [address], close to its junction with [address]. The area is predominantly residential, although [address] includes commercial premises, some of which are not far from the appeal site. The proposal seeks to create an additional bedroom within an existing House in [name] (HMO), increasing occupancy from 6 to 7 people.

The addition of a single occupant to the existing HMO would result in a modest increase in comings and goings. Due to the building’s position at the end of the terrace, close to a well trafficked road and commercial uses, it would be 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026 reasonable to assume that an additional occupant would not result in a significant increase in noise and disturbance and would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents in this context.

I conclude that the development would not result in an unacceptable harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. The proposal therefore complies with Policy H7 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (the Local Plan) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the living conditions of existing residents are protected and there is no adverse impact on residential amenity.

The proposal includes a shared kitchen, living and dining room to serve the occupants of the property. The Council considers the overall floor area to be appropriate for the proposed number of occupants, in line with the Council’s Guidance on Standards and Management of Houses in [name] (the Guidance). The kitchen extends along the longest wall of this room and amended plans submitted during the application process identified additional cooking facilities.

The Guidance allows kitchens to be shared by more than 5 people, provided the floor area and facilities are adequate. Although the kitchen would not contain 2 full sets of facilities as suggested in the Guidance, its size allows for a suitable level of provision for 7 people. Any waiting time to use the kitchen, caused by all occupants being unable to use it simultaneously, is unlikely to be significant. The proposal would not therefore lead to unacceptable living conditions in respect of the shared facilities.

To create an additional bedroom on the second floor, bedroom 6 would be divided and both this room and the new room would be extended using part of the space currently afforded to bedroom 5. The ceiling height to bedroom 5 is partly restricted by the sloping roof and around 50% of the room would have a ceiling height over 2.14 metres. The overall floor area of bedroom 5 significantly exceeds the minimum size set out in the Guidance, and it would provide ample space for a bed, storage, a desk, and circulation. Notwithstanding that it would not comply with the Guidance in terms of the floor area to head height ratio, bedroom 5 would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants.

I conclude that the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants, having particular regard to the adequacy and functionality of the shared kitchen facilities and the floor area to head height ratio of bedroom 5. The proposal therefore complies with Local Plan Policy H7 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that there is no adverse impact on residential amenity.

The Council’s reasons for refusal, provided with their appeal questionnaire, reference a conflict with Local Plan Policy H11 in respect of both main issues. However, this policy is not referred to within the Council’s statement, and no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would lead to an over concentration of HMOs. Therefore, the proposed development has not been shown to conflict with Policy H11.

Interested parties have also expressed concerns about overdevelopment of the site, a lack of parking in the area and issues during works being undertaken at the property. However, these concerns are largely speculative, and there is very limited substantive evidence to support them. As such, these issues do not outweigh my conclusion that the development is acceptable.

The Council has made a brief reference to the requirement for a planning obligation within the suggested conditions section of its statement. However, no further detail or explanation has been provided and therefore there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that a legal agreement is required to make the development acceptable.

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 National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance and amended where necessary in the interests of clarity and to ensure that they comply with the relevant tests and legislation, taking into account the representations of the appellant.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring secure cycle storage is reasonable and necessary to ensure adequate provision and to promote sustainable modes of transport. I have amended the wording of this condition to make the required level of provision clearer.

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 and planning permission granted.