# 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 - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, ho7-loss-as-harm, dp3-3-plan-compliance, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **S4(1): fail.** HMO benefits (limited) substantially outweighed by loss of family housing and inadequate communal space (DL 19-23) - **HO7: harm (substantial weight).** HO7 read in reverse - council HNA shows family-housing need, so LOSS of a family home given substantial weight against; no 6-month marketing evidence (DL 8-11, 21) - **DP3(3): harm (substantial weight).** non-compliance with LP DM11 communal-space standard given substantial weight via DP3(3) (with DP3(2)(a) social interaction) (DL 12-13, 22) - **P3: pass.** mixed commercial street; modest activity increase not harmful (DL 14-16) ## 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) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011088 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5af54454-c929-4191-ad9c-1cf3d1c3a8cf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011088.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.