# 16 Hobart Street, Leicester (7-person HMO)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton
- **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007630
- **Application reference:** 20260070
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from house (C3) to a 7-person house in multiple occupation (sui generis), retrospective
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4
- **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 Ho11
- **Main issues:** housing mix and character, living conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, concentration-policy, living-conditions, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, new-local-plan

## Summary
A 7-person HMO in a Leicester terrace where HMOs already make up 15-20% of the stock. Dismissed. The inspector found a significant concentration in conflict with Local Plan Ho11, and cumulative noise and disturbance. Under S4 the modest benefits were substantially outweighed.

## Issues and findings
- **Concentration.** "between 15 to 20% of the total housing stock are HMOs. In my judgement, this amounts to a significant concentration of HMOs and indicates the community in which the appeal site is located has become unbalanced" (DL ¶10).
- **Living conditions.** Reducing occupancy from 10 to 7 did not overcome "the broader concerns arising from the significant concentration of HMOs in the area" (DL ¶12).
- **S4.** "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶19).

## What made the difference
The ward-level HMO share taken from the Council's Article 4 review. Without a policy threshold, the inspector used that evidence to judge a "significant concentration" (DL ¶8-10).

## Transferable points
- Where the plan sets no HMO threshold, a 15-20% local share can be a significant concentration on the Council's evidence (DL ¶8-10).
- Good access to public transport and services, and the more effective use of land, did not outweigh harm to housing mix in the S4 balance (DL ¶17-19).

## Policy findings
- **S4: fail.** benefits (effective use of land, accessibility, local spending) substantially outweighed by harm to housing mix and living conditions (DL 16-19)
- **P3: harm.** mapped: letter cites a Framework "objective" that development is appropriate for its location; cumulative noise and disturbance with other HMOs (DL 11-13, 18)
- **HE9: neutral.** no external change; preserves South Highfields Conservation Area (DL 14-15)

## Key facts
- HMOs are 15-20% of the housing stock in this part of Stoneygate ward, which the inspector held a "significant concentration" (DL 10)
- Article 4 Direction area; occupancy reduced from 10 to 7 (DL 9, 12)
- New Local Plan adopted after the Council's decision; Ho10 renumbered Ho11 (DL 3)
- [object Object]

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007630
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a4e41f68-409e-455b-879b-55b035155ffc

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007630.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.