- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Hatch
- Authority
- Tameside (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010069
- Application reference
- 25/00875/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use from a 4-bedroom dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 6-bedroom house in multiple occupation (Class C4)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR4, P3, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Tameside Unitary Development Plan T1, H10, Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan JP-C8, JP-P1
- Main issues
- parking and highway safety; living conditions of future occupiers; neighbour noise; waste storage
Summary
Conversion of a terraced house at a busy Stalybridge junction to a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO). The inspector found that extra on-street parking by the junction's filter lanes would create an unacceptable highway safety risk, and that living conditions would be poor: too little shared space, one bedroom with only a rooflight, and two bedrooms opening onto the pavement. In the S4 balance, housing weight under HO7 and L2 was undercut by the lack of evidence of need and by L2's own living-standards requirement. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The parties were invited to comment on this document and the comments received have been taken into account in the determination of the appeal" (DL ¶3).
- Highway safety: CONFLICT. "This would lead to greater levels of congestion and increase the opportunities for conflict between vehicles, creating an unacceptable risk to highway safety in this location" (DL ¶9).
- Living conditions, P3: CONFLICT. "living conditions within it for a future occupier would be oppressive and far poorer than it is reasonable to expect" (DL ¶16). "this does not negate the requirement for a proposal to demonstrate that acceptable levels of living conditions would be provided for future occupiers" (DL ¶14).
- HO7: need not evidenced. "There is no substantive evidence before me which identifies such a need for additional HMO accommodation, though I accept the proposal would add generally to the overall supply of homes in line with the aims of the Framework" (DL ¶32).
- L2: own proviso failed. "This policy though also states such development should provide acceptable … living standards for residents in terms of, amongst other matters, external amenity space. The proposal would not do so" (DL ¶33; the … marks a page break).
Planning balance
S4(1). "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶34). The harms are put under TR4 (parking) and P3 (living conditions). No "should be refused" trigger is cited, although the highway finding uses the "unacceptable" wording of TR6(4).
What made the difference
The junction. Six independent adults with no off-street parking, on a frontage beside filter lanes, turned a parking shortfall into a safety risk. Inside, the loss of the living room to a bedroom left one shared room for six people.
Transferable points
- HO7 substantial weight is tied to "evidenced accommodation needs"; without evidence of a need for HMO rooms the scheme only adds "generally to the overall supply of homes" (DL ¶32).
- L2's substantial weight for additional homes carries its own condition on living standards and external amenity space; failing that removes the benefit (DL ¶33).
- HMO licensing does not replace the planning requirement to show acceptable living conditions (DL ¶14).
- An occupancy condition that contradicts the description of development fails the Framework's tests for conditions (DL ¶29).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR4 | conflict | no off-street parking; up to six occupants parking on a frontage next to filter lanes at a busy junction; "an unacceptable risk to highway safety"; the Framework conflict is put under TR4 "with regard to parking provision" (TR6 not cited) (DL 5-11, 34) | |
| P3 | conflict | single shared kitchen-diner not shown to work for six; Bedroom 6 lit only by a small rooflight, "oppressive"; ground-floor bedrooms open straight onto a busy pavement; small yard also holding bikes and bins (DL 12-20, 34) | |
| HO7 | benefit | letter says "Policy H07"; substantial weight is for homes meeting evidenced needs; no substantive evidence of a need for more HMO accommodation, though the scheme adds generally to supply (DL 32) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | L2 substantial weight for creating additional homes acknowledged, but the policy also requires acceptable living standards including external amenity space, which the scheme does not provide (DL 33) | |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects; S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL 31, 34) |
Key facts
- No parking restrictions nearby; high demand for on-street parking in dense terraced streets (DL 6)
- Cycle store for six bikes could be secured by condition (DL 10)
- No national or local standard for communal space in an HMO; the scheme still had to show the space would work, and licensing does not replace that (DL 13-14)
- Neighbour noise could be handled by an HMO Management Plan condition; waste storage adequate (DL 25, 27)
- A condition limiting occupancy to 4 would conflict with the description of development (DL 29)
- Sustainable location and economic benefits given modest weight for the small scale (DL 35)
- Letter gives the Framework's issue date as 19 August 2026; parties invited to comment (DL 3)
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.