Appeal 6006559

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the words ‘retrospective planning’ from the description as this does not form part of the proposed development.

At the time of my visit, I observed that whilst internal works had taken place within the appeal property, it was not occupied.

The originally submitted proposed site plan, which was considered by the Council when it made its decision, does not identify any proposed car parking provision within the boundary of the appeal property.

As part of their appeal submission the appellant has provided an amended proposed site plan which includes the provision of 2no. car parking spaces in the area to the front of the appeal property, as well as the dropping of the kerb to provide vehicular access to this area.

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 this amended plan.

Having regard to case law, I am mindful that interested parties may not be aware that an amended plan has been submitted with the appeal. Consequently, they may not have had the opportunity to make representations on any potential impacts arising from this amendment. In addition, the Council has stated that relevant consultees have not had an opportunity to comment on this amendment and that the provision of the parking spaces as shown on the amended proposed 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) site plan could cause additional issues in respect of the living conditions of future occupiers of the front bedroom.

In view of all the above, I cannot be certain that accepting this amended plan as part of this appeal would not be prejudicial to the Council and interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal against the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to privacy, odours, outdoor amenity space, and noise and disturbance; • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the area, with regard to the mix and balance of housing; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to car parking, and noise and disturbance.

The Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) asks that careful consideration is given to the internal layout of Houses in [name] (HMO), with particular regard given to the location of bedrooms in relation to communal living space to ensure that residents have privacy.

In this regard, the window serving proposed Bedroom 2 would be sited adjacent, and perpendicular, to the external door serving the shared communal kitchen/dining area. This door provides access to the rear yard area where external bins will be stored, as well as the likely area that occupants would seek to dry clothes outside and that cycle storage facilities would need to be provided. Given the number of proposed occupants, this external door would be used frequently.

I observed on site that when using this door to exit the property, occupants would have a clear view into parts of Bedroom 2 through the window. Additionally, when returning to this door from the communal rear yard area, occupants would have a direct view into Bedroom 2 through this window.

I therefore find the relationship between the window serving Bedroom 2 and the external door, as well as the communal rear yard area, would result in an unacceptable level of privacy for the occupier of this bedroom, to the detriment of their living conditions.

The appellant has suggested that a condition requiring the obscure glazing of this bedroom window and/or the provision of a privacy screen within the rear yard, positioned to shield this window from the activity of the communal yard area, could be imposed.

However, in the absence of any substantive details as to how a privacy screen would work, I cannot be certain it would provide adequate levels of privacy for the occupant of Bedroom 2. I am not therefore convinced that imposing such a condition would address my concerns in respect of this issue. Furthermore, any privacy screen, and/or obscure glazing of this window, could also potentially impact upon the outlook from this window.

[name] acknowledge the appellant’s point that it is not uncommon for residential terrace properties to have ground floor rooms overlooking shared or communal spaces, in this case the window would be the only opening serving this bedroom within a HMO. Consequently, this bedroom would be the space that the occupant would spend most of their time within the appeal property. It is therefore important that the occupant is provided with an acceptable level of privacy within this bedroom.

In addition to privacy, the SPD also states that careful consideration should be given to the internal layout to ensure that bedrooms are not subject to unacceptable noise from communal areas.

The Council has raised concerns in respect of the close proximity of proposed Bedrooms 2 and 5 in relation to the shared kitchen/dining area, with particular regard to odours, noise and disturbance arising from this communal area and the subsequent impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of these two bedrooms.

Whilst these concerns are noted, in this case I find that suitably worded planning conditions requiring the provision of acoustic installation between these rooms, as well as the provision of an extraction system in the kitchen area, could be imposed to overcome these specific matters, should I be minded to allow the appeal.

The Council also raised concerns in respect of the size of the rear communal yard area as an outdoor space for future occupiers. Whilst the SPD states that provision should be made for outdoor amenity space as part of HMO proposals, I have not been provided with any policy requirement or guidance relating to the specific size or amount of outdoor amenity space that should be provided for HMOs. Furthermore, I note that with regard to outdoor amenity space the SPD also states that “...all applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis”.

Based on my observations on site, and notwithstanding my concerns in respect of the relationship between this communal rear yard area and the occupants of proposed Bedroom 2, I found that the proposed rear yard area was sufficient in size to meet the day-to-day outdoor amenity needs of the proposed occupants. Such needs would include the drying of clothes, and the accessing and storage of bins and cycles.

In addition, residents would have access to Alexandra Park, which is within a reasonable walking distance of the appeal site. This nearby area of public open space would provide future occupiers with recreation space and areas for sitting out.

In view of all the above, I find that future occupants would be provided with an acceptable level of outdoor amenity space. Furthermore, suitably worded planning conditions could be attached to ensure that noise, disturbance and odours from the shared communal kitchen/dining area would not have a harmful impact upon the living conditions of occupiers of proposed Bedrooms 2 and 5.

However, for the reasons given, I find that future occupiers of proposed Bedroom 2 would not be provided with an acceptable level of privacy from other occupants using and accessing the rear communal yard area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide appropriate living conditions for all future occupiers. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CP10 and CP17 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) (CS) and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) (PfE) with regards to the design of developments and the impact on amenity and quality of life. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users, as well as the guidance in the SPD where it seeks to ensure that residents have privacy.

The evidence before me details that a borough wide Article [address] which prevents the change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a HMO (Class C4), unless planning permission is first obtained.

The SPD acknowledges that as well as forming part of the borough’s housing supply and contributing towards meeting housing needs, HMO conversions can also enable the continued viable use of older housing and provide an effective use of land and buildings. The SPD does go on to explain that HMOs typically intensify the use of properties in comparison to family homes and concentrations of them can impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the wider neighbourhood.

As such, to help ensure a mixed and balanced community, and to ensure proposals do not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon amenity and quality of life, the SPD sets out restrictions to limit the concentration of HMOs in small areas. These restrictions relate to three measures: i) a concentration threshold; ii) restricting the sandwiching of properties; and iii) restricting three adjacent HMOs.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would adhere to all three of these measures and therefore would satisfy the restrictions to limit the concentration of HMOs as set out in the SPD.

The Council however contend that the approach in the SPD is narrow, with the SPD itself stating that the concentration threshold may not be an exhaustive record of all HMOs in an area, due to some HMOs not being known to the Council. The SPD states that further investigations may therefore be required as part of the planning application process in response to new or updated information about the presence of HMOs in the locality.

In this regard, I note that interested parties and local councillors have raised general concerns over the number of HMOs in the area. However, other than reference to another HMO at no. [address], my attention has not been drawn to where specifically these other HMOs are located in relation to the appeal site, or how many there are in the area. It is also unclear what “further investigations...in response to new or updated information about the presence of HMOs in the locality” the Council has undertaken, as advised within the SPD, to support their reason for refusal in respect of this issue.

As such, there is very limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there is an overconcentration of HMOs in this area, or that the proposal would result in an unbalancing of the housing mix and erode the residential character of the area.

In view of the above, and based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposed change of use of this dwelling to a 5-bedroom HMO would not have a harmful impact upon the character of the area. I therefore find no conflict with [name] CP6, CP10 and CP17, and [name]-P1 and JP-S1, where they together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that developments provide an appropriate mix of house types, sizes and affordability, and respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality. The proposal would also adhere to the restrictions to limit the concentration of HMOs as detailed within the SPD, as well as the provisions of the Framework where it seeks to provide a mix of housing types needed for different groups in the community. Living conditions of nearby occupiers

Saved Policy A1S of the Wigan Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) (UDP) requires convenient, safe and secure car parking for new development in line with the maximum standards, which are set out within Appendix 9 of the UDP. Saved Policy A1S goes on to state that the scope for providing car parking below the maximum standards will be considered against four factors, including the accessibility of site by public transport and the availability of on-street parking without detriment to residential amenity and highway safety.

My attention has been drawn to a Policy Note: [name] for New Development (2023) (PN), however no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this PN has been through any public consultation or examination. In any case, the PN refers to the above-mentioned requirements of UDP Policy A1S and states that car parking standards should no longer be a maximum.

Notwithstanding the above, I have not been made aware of any specific parking standards or requirements in relation to HMOs within saved Policy A1S or the PN, with the SPD stating that it is not possible to have a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking that is suitable for all HMOs. The SPD therefore goes on to state that the level of parking provision will be based upon a number of factors, including, the sustainability of the site in relation to services and amenities; availability of public transport and access to bus stops; extent of existing parking provision in the surrounding locality; and parking demand in comparison to the use of the building as standard residential accommodation.

The evidence before me is that prior to the internal works taking place the appeal property was a four-bedroom dwelling. The front yard area of the appeal property is covered in a mixture of paving stones and loose stones, however I noted that the highway kerb to the front of the property was not dropped. Furthermore, and as detailed earlier, the originally submitted proposed site plan, which was considered by the Council when it made its decision, does not identify any proposed car parking provision within the boundary of the appeal property.

Nevertheless, I am cognisant that should the kerb to the front of the appeal property be dropped, the area to the front of the appeal property could be used to park at least one, potentially two, vehicles. To that end, during my visit I observed that the areas to the front of two of the four properties within this terrace row were being used to park vehicles off the street. I also saw that the majority of other properties on [address] benefited from off-street parking provision.

The appellant states that car ownership within HMOs is less than within C3 family dwellings. There is no substantive evidence before me to support this claim. I therefore find it likely that at least some future occupiers of the HMO would need to park on-street, even if the space to the front was used for parking of a vehicle. However, depending on the demographics of the occupants, the appeal property’s use as a four-bedroom residential dwelling could also generate similar on-street car parking demand.

Additionally, the Council acknowledge that the appeal site is located within a sustainable location, and based on my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree. The appeal site is also located within a reasonable walking distance of bus stops on [address] (A577) and [address] / [address] (A571). The provision for cycle storage within the site, which could be secured by condition, would further encourage sustainable modes of travel.

As such, I find that occupants of this HMO would have a range of sustainable transport modes available to them. This would likely lessen reliance on the need to own a private car, and so therefore the need to park on-street.

Furthermore, at the time of my visit there was significant levels of available on-street parking provision along [address], as well as the nearby streets of [address], [address] and [address]. Whilst my observations are only a snapshot in time, my findings indicate that capacity for on-street parking is available in the vicinity.

In coming to this view, I note the Council’s, and interested parties, concerns in respect of demand for on-street parking in this area and resultant displacement of existing vehicles. However, none of the parties have provided any detailed analysis of the existing parking situation in the area. Consequently, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate a current shortfall in spaces, or details to indicate the extent to which the development may affect demand for roadside parking or how it would exacerbate local on-street parking stress.

Consequently, based on my own observations on site, as well as the accessible location of the appeal site, I find that there would be sufficient available on-street car parking capacity in the vicinity to cater for the additional parking demand arising from the proposed development.

There is a probability that the number of comings and goings associated with 5no. unrelated residents within a HMO would be more than that of the use of the property as a single four-bedroom dwellinghouse. However, this is not guaranteed as there are no restrictions on a large, single household occupying this property as a four-bedroom C3 dwellinghouse. It does not therefore necessarily follow that the appeal proposal would result in a noticeable increase in comings and goings in comparison to its use as a four-bedroom house.

Furthermore, the proposed development relates to an end terrace property and retains the existing entrance at the front of the property, with the door and communal entrance corridor situated closest to the gable elevation, and therefore on the opposite side to the adjoining property. This relationship would assist in ensuring that neighbouring occupiers are not unduly affected by any potential increase in comings and goings through the front door.

In terms of the use of the back door and outdoor amenity space, it is again acknowledged that these could potentially be used more often when compared to a single dwellinghouse. However, I do not find the use of this back door, or the outdoor area to the rear, would lead to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance experienced by neighbouring occupiers.

The Council have also raised concerns over noise and disturbance arising from additional vehicles using the street and looking for parking spaces. However, given the relatively dense surrounding residential character of the area, I find that any increase in vehicle movements, and any subsequent increase in associated noise, arising from the proposed development would not be discernible.

I conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to on-street car parking stress, noise and disturbance. I therefore find no conflict with [name] CP7 and CP17, [name]-P1 and JP-C8 and UDP saved Policy A1S, where they together seek to ensure amongst other things, that proposals provide appropriate and convenient car parking and do not have an unacceptable impact upon amenity and quality of life. I also find no conflict with the guidance for car parking provision set out within the SPD, and the provisions of the Framework where it seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users.

I have been provided with a copy of a Certificate of Lawfulness for a [name] of Development2 (CLPUD) at the appeal site. Whilst issued on 23 October 2025 this CLPUD confirms that as of 4 July 2025 (the date of the CLPUD application) the change of use of the property from C3 to C4 was lawful. However, the informatives attached to the CLPUD clarify that a boroughwide Article 4 direction came into force on 31 August 2025 and therefore any lawful change of use would be contingent upon it being implemented before the date that the Article 4 direction came into force.

In this regard, the appellant’s own submissions confirm the use of the property as a C4 (HMO) had not been implemented by the time the Article 4 direction came into force. Furthermore, I observed during my visit that the property was not currently occupied as a HMO. As such, and on the evidence before me, this CLPUD does not represent a viable fallback position for the appellant.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the high-quality internal finish of the accommodation, which I observed during my visit, and has highlighted the important role that HMOs play in providing cheaper and more flexible accommodation within the overall housing stock. Whilst acknowledged, these factors do not however 2 Council Ref: A/25/099293/LUCP outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the proposal’s failure to provide appropriate living conditions for all future occupiers.

For the reasons given above, I have found that the appeal proposal would not have a harmful impact upon the character of the area and would not have an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers. However, I have found that the appeal proposal would not provide appropriate living conditions for all future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy for the occupiers of proposed Bedroom 2.

I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.