# 65A Richmond Wood Road, Bournemouth (8-person HMO)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp
- **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007836
- **Application reference:** P/25/03589/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a three-bedroom semi-detached house (C3) to an eight-person HMO (sui generis)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3, S4
- **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS16, CS18, CS24, CS41, Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan 2002 6.17, BCP Parking Standards SPD 2021
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, living conditions of neighbours, character, parking, cycle storage
- **Tags:** hmo, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, living-conditions-outlook, habitats-mitigation, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
Conversion of a Bournemouth semi to an eight-person HMO was dismissed. Two ground-floor bedrooms would look out at a fence and a neighbouring gable less than 1.5 m away, and the extra comings and goings along corridors against the party wall would disturb the attached neighbour. Character, parking and cycle storage were acceptable. Under S4 the P3 living-conditions harm substantially outweighed the modest benefits; the unsigned heathland mitigation agreement was a further problem.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶5).
- **Future occupiers' outlook: HARM.** "The proximity, height and width of the fence and No 65 itself would result in them appearing oppressive from the two bedrooms" (DL ¶8). "it cannot be assumed that the occupiers would just be asleep when in the bedrooms" (DL ¶9).
- **Neighbour noise: HARM.** "the intensification of the use resulting from the proposed development would result in a material increase in noise and disturbance experienced by occupiers of No 65B" (DL ¶16).
- **Character, parking, cycles: ACCEPTABLE** (DL ¶20, ¶24, ¶27).
- **Habitats.** "In the absence of a completed and signed agreement I cannot be certain that the proposed development would not have significant effects on the SAC and SPA" (DL ¶29).

## Planning balance
S4(1), with P3 as the Framework policy breached (DL ¶36–37). "the harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal property and occupiers of No 65B would substantially outweigh these benefits" (DL ¶38). Conclusion plan-led (DL ¶39).

## What made the difference
The layout: two bedrooms with windows facing a fence and gable at close range, and no evidence that party-wall insulation would work. Fewer bedrooms, or rooms with a better outlook, and a signed SAC/SPA agreement would have been needed.

## Transferable points
- In an HMO, bedroom outlook matters because rooms are used for living and home-working, not only sleeping (DL ¶9).
- The argument that occupiers can choose other rooms fails in an area of high demand (DL ¶10).
- Proposed sound insulation needs evidence that it works and fits (DL ¶15).

## Policy findings
- **P3: fail.** two ground-floor bedrooms face a fence under 1.5 m away and the gable of No 65 - oppressive outlook; intensified noise through the party wall to No 65B, insulation unevidenced (DL 8-16, 37)
- **DP3: accord.** mapped - only one building, HMOs a minority; quiet suburban character unchanged (DL 17-20)
- **TR4: accord.** mapped - no on-site parking accords with the 2021 SPD (one space required); accessible location; no highways objection (DL 21-24)
- **N6: fail.** Dorset Heaths SAC / Dorset Heathlands SPA mitigation agreement unsigned and incomplete (DL 29)
- **S4: fail.** inside settlement; construction jobs, reuse of vacant house and spend substantially outweighed by living-conditions harm (DL 36-38)

## Key facts
- HMO needs an extension to work; whether operational development is part of the scheme left unresolved (DL 28)
- Access to rear cycle store under 1.5 m wide, below SPD standard, but no harm found (DL 26-27)
- 2002 HMO policy criterion requiring detached buildings with 7+ habitable rooms not relied on (DL 30)
- Costs application made; separate decision (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007836

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007836.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.