12 Sladefield Road, Ward End, Birmingham

Decision

dismissed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S McIntyre

Authority

Birmingham (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011088

Application reference

2026/00761/PA

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of dwellinghouse (C3) to small HMO (C4) for up to 5 occupants

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), HO7, DP3(3)

Development plan policies

Birmingham Development Plan 2017 PG3, TP30, TP35, Development Management DPD 2021 DM2, DM11, HMO SPD 2022

Main issues

loss of family housing; living conditions of occupiers; neighbour amenity

Summary

The appeal was for a change of a Birmingham family house to a 5-person C4 HMO. It was dismissed. Neighbour amenity was acceptable, but there was no marketing evidence of a lack of family-housing demand and no adequate communal living space. In the S4 balance the inspector ran two Framework policies "in reverse". HO7's substantial weight was applied to the loss of a family home the needs assessment says is needed. DP3(3)'s substantial weight for complying with design policy became substantial weight against for breaching the local HMO space standard.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
• Loss of family housing: CONFLICT (DM11, TP35). "no marketing evidence has been provided with the appeal, and I cannot therefore reasonably conclude that in this case there is a lack of demand for family housing in the area" (DL ¶10).
• Occupiers' living conditions: FAIL. "There is no single internal communal space sufficient to accommodate all occupants" (DL ¶12).
• Neighbour amenity: PASS. The street was mixed and near Alum Rock Road's commercial uses (DL ¶14-15).

Planning balance

This was the S4 balance (DL ¶19). The HMO would provide "a form of affordable housing for 5 people ... an efficient use of land", but with little evidence of meeting need, so limited weight (DL ¶20). Against it: "Policy HO7 ... includes ... homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1 which includes families with children. The Council has produced a housing needs assessment that indicates a need for family housing and in the absence of any other evidence regarding need I afford the loss of family housing substantial weight" (DL ¶21). And: "Policy DP3 3 states that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality ... the proposal is contrary to Policy DM11 ... and I afford this adverse effect substantial weight" (DL ¶22). "the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23).

What made the difference

The missing marketing evidence and the undersized communal space. The inspector turned both local shortcomings into substantial-weight Framework harms: HO7 applied to the lost family home, and DP3(3) applied to non-compliance. That is a notable reading. Both policies are drafted as benefit-side weights. Six months' marketing and a larger combined lounge/kitchen would likely have tipped the balance.

Transferable points

• HO7's substantial weight can be applied to the loss of a type of home an up-to-date needs assessment identifies (families with children via HO1) (DL ¶21). Compare PINS-6010946, which used HO1 directly.
• DP3(3)'s "substantial weight to compliance" with plan design policies was treated as substantial weight against non-compliance, including internal space standards (DL ¶22).
• An HMO serving undefined need gets limited weight in S4 (DL ¶20).
• An HMO licence under the Housing Act 2004 does not bear on the planning merits (DL ¶18).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• No marketing evidence (SPD requires 6 months city-wide) to show lack of family-housing demand (DL 9-10)
• Kitchen/diner too small and remote from communal room; no single space for 5 occupants (DL 12)
• HMO licence already granted under the Housing Act - a separate regime (DL 18)

Related decisions

• PINS-6010946

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.