- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: N Duff
- Authority
- Wigan (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6008026
- Application reference
- A/25/099971/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of a two-bedroom terraced house (C3) to a five-person small HMO (C4), retrospective
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- P3, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Wigan Core Strategy CP7, CP10, CP17, Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan JP-P1, JP-C8, JP-H3, Wigan HMO SPD
- Main issues
- living conditions of neighbours and parking; living conditions of future occupiers
Summary
A retrospective conversion of a two-bedroom terraced house in Wigan to a five-bedroom HMO, needed after an Article 4 Direction removed the permitted development right. Neighbour amenity and parking were acceptable. But the ground-floor bedroom shares a thin wall with the communal kitchen-lounge, and noise mitigation was unevidenced. That P3 conflict meant the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶4).
- Neighbours and parking: acceptable. "whilst there may be some increased competition for car parking spaces ... I do not consider that it would be of a level of significance to adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents" (DL ¶17).
- Future occupiers, P3: FAIL. "the transfer of noise through the wall from the communal area from socialising, use of the kitchen and appliances would likely cause unacceptable noise to the occupier of bedroom 2" (DL ¶22).
- Benefits. No evidence of need for this type of accommodation, so "this benefit attracts only modest weight" (DL ¶30).
Planning balance
S4(1). The P3 conflict meant "these adverse effects of the scheme would be such that harm and related local and national policy conflicts would substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶34). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶35).
What made the difference
One room's layout. Acoustic evidence showing effective insulation, or a different layout, would probably have allowed the appeal.
Transferable points
- P3 living-conditions failure for a single room can decide an S4 case where benefits are small (DL ¶22, ¶34).
- Mitigation claims need evidence of what is required and how effective it would be (DL ¶23).
- HMO accommodation choice gets modest weight without evidence of need (DL ¶30).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | fail | ground-floor bedroom 2 shares a thin wall with the communal kitchen/lounge; mitigation unevidenced (DL 20-23, 28, 34) | |
| P3 | pass | neighbours - modest increase in comings and goings and parking; HMO concentration thresholds met; on-street parking available (DL 10-18) | |
| HO5 | benefit | mapped: HMO adds choice and affordability, but no evidence of need; "modest weight" (DL 30) | |
| TR3 | benefit | mapped: convenient access to services and public transport, cycle storage, weighs in favour (DL 16, 31) | |
| S4(1) | fail | P3 conflict means harm would substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 33-34) |
Key facts
- Borough-wide Article 4 Direction for C3 to C4 took effect 31 Aug 2025; an earlier LDC for the same HMO (Feb 2025) therefore no longer usable (DL 2, 7)
- Appellant's small parking survey showed at least 3 free spaces; LHA no objection (DL 14, 16)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.