# 5 St Marys Road, Garston, Liverpool

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood
- **Authority:** Liverpool (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010552
- **Application reference:** 25F/1821
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Extension and change of use of vacant upper floors (consented as 2 flats) to 7-bed HMO above retained shop
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HO9, L2(1)(d)(ii)
- **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 SP2, H10, SPG7
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, fallback

## Summary
Seven-bed HMO in long-vacant space above a shop in Garston district centre. The principle was supported, but the appeal was dismissed because the accommodation "would be cramped and awkward for occupation by 7 people" and had no external space (DL ¶¶11–13). HO9(c) and L2 were read as imposing living-standard requirements on HMOs (DL ¶10). Parties had commented on the new Framework (DL ¶6).

## What made the difference
Meeting minimum room sizes "just" was not enough, given the combination of cramped internal space and no outdoor amenity (DL ¶¶11–12). The Inspector would not accept a yard introduced at appeal because it raised new issues (DL ¶5).

## Policy findings
- **HO9: fail.** HO9(c) read as requiring HMOs to "provide adequate living and storage space and sufficient shared cooking, laundry and amenity areas" — cramped layout, no external space (DL 10-13)
- **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** effective-use support conditional on acceptable living standards incl. external amenity space (DL 10, 13)

## Key facts
- Headroom only just achieved by lowering floor levels; no external amenity space and no nearby public open space identified
- Extant permission for 2 flats treated as a weak fallback because the HMO is significantly more intense (DL 14)
- Appeal-stage amended plans adding an external yard rejected as procedurally unfair (DL 4-5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/88e6c673-dbe5-4171-8458-c72466d28211
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010552

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010552.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.