# 148 Bradwell Common Boulevard, Milton Keynes (house to 6-bed HMO)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins
- **Authority:** Milton Keynes (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009760
- **Application reference:** PLN/2025/2471
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a terraced house (C3) to a six-bedroom, six-person HMO (C4), already in use
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Plan:MK 2019 HN7, D1, Milton Keynes HMO SPD 2012
- **Main issues:** character of the area - mix and balance of the community
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, hmo, hmo-concentration, retrospective, psed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A six-person HMO in a Milton Keynes terrace, already operating, pushed the local HMO concentration over the SPD's 35% threshold. The inspector found harm to the mix and balance of the community and framed it as a conflict with DP3(2)(a), a "should be refused" principle under DP3(3). The limited benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶4).
- **Concentration.** Licensed HMOs count in the SPD calculation even without planning permission: "Given that it does therefore form part of the current housing mix, No. 160 should be included in the calculation" (DL ¶10).
- **Community balance: HARM.** "The more transient nature of HMO occupation, together with reduced tenure, diminishes opportunities for community integration and cohesion" (DL ¶14).
- **DP3(2)(a) / DP3(3).** The harm "conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3(2)(a) of the Framework, which support healthy, mixed, vibrant and integrated communities" (DL ¶21). "Development should be refused if without clear justification it conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶21).

## Planning balance
S4(1), with the S4(2)(c) trigger set out (DL ¶20). "Given the modest scale of the development, the weight of each of the benefits noted under other considerations is limited. Consequently, the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Residents' circumstances got moderate weight; PSED and Article 8 considered (DL ¶23-26).

## What made the difference
The SPD threshold, with a methodology the council evidenced and an earlier appeal on the same street. No evidence of specific need or lack of alternative housing for the residents.

## Transferable points
- HMO over-concentration can be framed as a DP3(2)(a) conflict and a DP3(3) trigger under S4 (DL ¶20-22).
- Licensed HMOs count towards a concentration threshold even if unpermitted (DL ¶10).
- Displacement of existing occupiers gets moderate weight absent evidence of no alternative accommodation (DL ¶15, ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(2)(a): conflict (significant weight).** HMOs within 50 m exceed the SPD's 35% threshold (licensed but unpermitted No 160 counted); loss of family housing and transient occupation harm mix and balance of the community (DL 8-16, 21, 23)
- **DP3(3): fail.** "Development should be refused if without clear justification it conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3" - set out; justification not separately assessed (DL 21)
- **S4(1): fail.** limited-weight benefits (shared affordable accommodation, efficient use, supply) substantially outweighed; S4(2)(c) framing set out (DL 20-22)
- **PSED: neutral (moderate weight).** residents described as vulnerable; no evidence of lack of alternative accommodation; residents' situation moderate weight; Article 8 and A1P1 interference proportionate (DL 15, 23-26)

## Key facts
- Licensed as an HMO since 2021; Article 4 Direction in force (DL 3, 6)
- Three HMOs within 50 m including the site; follows appeal APP/Y0435/W/23/3329546 at No 184; Lancaster appeal APP/A2335/W/24/3343024 distinguished (DL 9-12)
- No parking, refuse or living-conditions objection (DL 13, 18)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009760
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f1994683-827d-4d6f-bfb5-357bcb0c015c

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009760.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.