HMO refused for over-concentration: testing the count

A refusal for over-concentration of houses in multiple occupation is a refusal under a local plan policy, not under national policy, and the argument is almost always about counting. The policy sets a proportion of HMOs within a defined area, the council counts what it believes is there, and the application fails because the count is already above the threshold. Challenging that refusal means testing the count, the area used and the classification of every property in it.

Behind the policy sits an Article 4 direction. Without one, the change from a family dwelling in Class C3 to a small shared house in Class C4 is permitted development under Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015, and no application arises at all.

How concentration policies are written

The usual structure is a threshold expressed as a proportion of residential properties within a stated distance of the application property, with permission refused where the proportion already exceeds it or would exceed it as a result. Some authorities add a rule about adjoining properties, so a proposal sandwiched between two existing HMOs is refused regardless of the wider proportion. Others work on street frontages rather than radii.

The figures vary between authorities and are set in the adopted plan or a supplementary document, so take them from the policy that applies rather than from a scheme elsewhere. What is common everywhere is that the policy depends on data the council holds, which is where it becomes contestable.

Article 4 directions and the permission they remove

Class L of Part 3 permits the change from Class C3 to Class C4 and back again. An Article 4 direction removes the C3 to C4 direction of that right, so a small HMO for up to six occupants needs planning permission in the area covered.

Three points follow. A large HMO with seven or more occupants is sui generis and always needs permission, direction or not. A direction has geographical limits, and properties a street outside it may still convert without an application. And national policy expects directions to be limited to situations where they are necessary to avoid unacceptable effects and to the smallest geographical area possible, which is relevant to how strictly the policy behind them should be applied.

Check the direction itself, not a summary. The date it came into force matters, because a use established before that date may be lawful without permission.

Counting methods and the radius used

This is where appeals are won. The council's count rests on records that were not compiled for this purpose.

Questions to put to the authority in writing: which dataset was used, on what date it was extracted, whether unimplemented permissions were counted, how the radius was measured, what the denominator was, and whether the application property itself was included in the numerator.

A straight-line radius drawn across a railway line or a park counts properties that have no functional relationship with the street. That is a legitimate point to make, though it is an argument about weight rather than a knockout.

Evidence about the existing mix of households

Your own survey is the most useful document you can produce. Walk the radius, record every residential address, and classify each one with a stated basis: licensed HMO from the public register, visible student let from a letting board, apparently single household from observation, unknown.

Then set your figure against the council's and explain each difference. An appeal statement that says the council's count is wrong carries little weight. One that lists 14 addresses the council counted as HMOs and gives the evidence that six of them are not carries a great deal.

Licensing register extracts are public and dated, which makes them the strongest single source. A Planning Statement should carry the count as an annexe with the methodology stated, rather than as a sentence in the text.

Amenity, parking and waste objections

Concentration is rarely the only reason. The supporting reasons are usually specific and usually fixable.

• Room sizes below the authority's HMO standards, which are set under housing legislation and often quoted in planning refusals
• Insufficient communal living space once bedrooms are counted at their proposed occupancy
• Bin storage with inadequate capacity for the collection cycle, or in a position visible from the street
• No cycle storage, where the policy requires it
• Parking stress on the street, where the authority has its own data or none at all

Parking is the one worth evidencing properly. A Parking Survey carried out to the recognised overnight methodology, on the correct nights and outside holiday periods, either supports the objection or removes it. Councils frequently refuse on parking stress without survey data of their own.

Licensing as a separate regime

Mandatory licensing under the Housing Act 2004 applies to HMOs with five or more occupants forming two or more households, and many authorities operate additional licensing schemes covering smaller properties. A licence is not a planning permission, and holding one does not make the use lawful in planning terms.

The reverse is also true. Planning permission does not guarantee a licence, and the licensing standards for room sizes, amenities and management can be stricter than anything the planning officer asked about. Both regimes have to be satisfied, and applicants who treat them as one thing get caught.

Where a C4 use was established before the Article 4 direction took effect, a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the way to establish it, and the evidence is tenancy agreements, council tax records and utility accounts over the relevant period.

Appeal evidence that addresses concentration

An appeal against a concentration refusal needs to do four things.

1. Test the count, address by address, with the authority's own dataset named and dated.
2. Apply the policy's own words, including any exception, and show how the proposal sits against them.
3. Deal with the supporting reasons separately, with room sizes, bin capacity, cycle storage and parking evidence each answered.
4. Offer conditions: a maximum number of occupants, a management plan, bin and cycle store details, and restriction of permitted development rights if that reassures.

Inspectors' treatment of these policies varies with the quality of the council's evidence base, which is the honest position. Where an authority has a current, published HMO database and a plan policy adopted on an examined evidence base, the policy tends to hold. Where the count comes from a licensing extract and officer recollection, it does not. Appeal decisions on comparable sites are indicative rather than binding, and there is a separate piece on using appeal decisions in an application.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. A lawful development certificate is the only formal way to confirm that an existing use is lawful. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.