Appeal 6005961

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [name] of Gid Rich Project Ltd against Salford City Council. This application is the subject of a separate

During the course of the planning application the Council changed the description of development to the change of use from a 6-occupant House in [name] (HMO) (use class C4) to an 8-occupant HMO (sui generis) including rear dormer, and new door, windows and stairs to the rear. I have used this description in my decision. The appellant has used the same description in their appeal statement; I am satisfied this demonstrates their agreement to it and they would not be prejudiced by my use of it.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers in the neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace house comprising two-storeys and a basement that is currently used as a six bedroom House in [name] (HMO). The row of terraced properties fronts onto Victoria Park, separated by a paved footway and front gardens. To the rear of the properties are modestly sized yards capable of accommodating 1no. parked car. The rear yards are accessed off a cobbled passageway to the rear and beyond the passageway a row of similar terraced properties mirrors the pattern of development. The area is notably quiet and peaceful in character due to the verdant park and the absence of a road to the front of the appeal site, making it more vulnerable to the effect of noise and disturbance than a more densely developed location.

It is proposed to change the use of the property from a six bedroom HMO to an eight bedroom HMO with a maximum of eight occupants. An L-shaped dormer is also proposed on the rear of the property along with an internal reconfiguration, external staircase, additional windows in the rear elevation and changes to openings in the side elevation.

Both parties have drawn my attention to other HMOs within the vicinity, however, there does not appear to be a proliferation as set out by the HMO Supplementary Planning Document (2024; reviewed 2025). Based on this, I do not agree with the Council that the proposed development would reduce community stability or social cohesion.

The appeal property is physically attached to 25 and [address], which, both parties state, are occupied as single family dwellings. I saw no evidence on site that would cause me to disagree with this. The doors and windows to both properties sit in close proximity to the appeal site and the rear yard of the appeal property adjoins those of its neighbours. It is clear there is a close relationship between the appeal site and these immediate neighbours.

The inherent nature of a HMO means the occupants operate as individual households with lives independent of one another. This would generate more activity through separate routines, visitors and general comings and goings, resulting in an overall increase in intensification of use. Given the close relationship between the appeal property and its two adjoining neighbours, Nos 25 and 29, the proposal would result in an adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers in these properties due to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance.

The appellant asserts that most of the noise generated in a HMO stems from the kitchen area rather than bedrooms due to appliances and activities such as cooking. Music is one particular source of noise that can cause disturbance and, realistically, the occupants of a HMO would play it in their bedrooms. This could result in eight separate noise sources happening simultaneously. The communal kitchen space and lounge provide two more and, whilst I note the appellant’s intention for the use of the office space, it would be difficult to control the use of that room to prevent music being played in a manner that would comply with the six tests of planning conditions. Taken collectively, there is a potential for each of these rooms to act as an independent source of disturbance.

There is no substantive evidence or management plan before me to explain how the HMO would be managed and operated, or how tenancies would be managed in a manner that would comply with the six tests of planning conditions. I note the appellant’s suggestion that the Council could have conditioned a management plan to address concerns relating to noise and disturbance. However, I am not convinced that a management plan could effectively control the comings and goings of tenants and their visitors whilst also meeting the six tests.

I acknowledge that the proposal attracted one objection from an interested party, however, the lack of objection does not indicate support for the proposal. I acknowledge statutory consultees raised no objection to the proposal. However, the Council did not raise concern regarding highway safety, air quality, land contamination or space standards for a HMO. I also recognise that the Council’s Environment Officer raised no objection or observations to the proposal in respect of noise; nonetheless, this is a recommendation and does not prevent the Council or myself from coming to a different view.

The appellant contends that the fallback position would be the implementation of a permission granting conversion of the appeal property into three studio apartments and 1no. 1-bedroom apartment. The appellant considers this to be a fallback on the basis the property would accommodate between eight and eleven occupants under such a scheme. This would break down into two to three occupants per apartment, with three occupants living in three of the flats if a total of eleven residents were to reside within the building.

I have not been provided with details of this scheme; however, a studio apartment typically consists of one main room that serves multiple functions, namely sleeping, living and dining. The only fully separate room is often the bathroom for privacy. Whilst it is conceivable that a couple may share a studio apartment, they are more commonly suited to individuals and it is unlikely that a third occupant would reside in a studio flat or even a one bedroom apartment. For these reasons it seems unlikely that the property would be inhabited by eleven people were the current planning consent to be implemented.

The layout of the proposal has not changed significantly since the appeal for the 10-bedroom HMO was dismissed. Despite the proposed reduction of two bedrooms, the appeal still proposes a dormer extension to create two additional bedrooms. The appellant asserts that the bedroom previously planned for the basement floor would become a lounge, separate to the main kitchen and dining area, and the ground floor bedroom would become an office. In other words, the appeal property would still be capable of physically accommodating ten bedroom spaces. Based on the evidence before me and given that the lounge proposed for the basement floor is still proposed to have an en-suite, I cannot be convinced that a planning condition restricting the occupancy of the HMO to eight people would not come under undue pressure in the future.

I have been directed to a planning approval for an 8-bedroom HMO at [address], within the same terrace as the appeal proposal. This planning permission pre-dates the Article 4 Direction covering this area by several years and was granted under the previous development plan. Examples of less favourable development being evident within the streetscene or surrounding area does not provide an excuse for replicating it.

My attention has also been drawn to a planning appeal at [address] in Darlington for an eight bedroom HMO. However, the property consisted of an end terrace, situated within a different environmental context and located in a different part of the country to the appeal site. Consequently, this example is not directly applicable to the appeal proposal. In any event, I must determine each case on its own merits.

I do not agree with the appellant’s claim that Policy H10 does not apply because the property already has an established use as a 6-person HMO. The proposed development would involve the conversion of a six bedroom HMO to an eight bedroom HMO and the principle of applying the policy to protect the positive residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood is equally relevant as it would be if it were being applied to the conversion of a Class C3 dwelling.

The appellant has referred to the overlap between Policy D5 of the Local Plan and Policy EN17 of the previous development plan. [name] have not been provided with Policy EN17 and I must make my decision based on the evidence before me, I have given this no weight.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the draft Policy HO9 of the consultation version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst the consultation document may give an idea as to how future government policy may be influenced, these policies hold no weight until such a time as the document is published.

With regard to the main issue, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with reference to noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Policies H10 and D5 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (2023) which, amongst other things, will support the conversion of an existing dwelling into a HMO only where it can be demonstrated that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the positive residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood having particular regard to potential increases in noise and disturbance, and does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the users of other buildings and spaces.

I have had regard to the additional matters raised in the third party representation including the loss of privacy, overlooking, loss of sunlight, visual impact of the dormer, impact on mental health of neighbours, increase in HMOs and lack of parking. However, none of the matters raised warrant a review of the conclusions I have drawn.

The Renters’ Rights Act (2026) has become law since the Council’s decision. This is separate to matters of planning policy and focusses on tenant protections and public health.

My attention has been drawn to an update with regards to Building Regulations for HMOs. This is covered under separate legislation and is not duplicated within the planning process.

For the reasons set out above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.