# 56 Woodstock Road, Worcester

- **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford
- **Authority:** Worcester (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011840
- **Application reference:** 24/00959/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Enlargement of 6-bed HMO to 8-bed HMO with a second dropped kerb
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), N2
- **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 06, SWDPR 29
- **Main issues:** street tree, highway safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, street-tree, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
This appeal to enlarge a Worcester HMO from 6 to 8 bedrooms, with a second dropped kerb for a third parking space, was dismissed. The kerb works would damage the roots of a mature street verge tree, probably leading to its loss. That was contrary to N2 and was given significant weight. The highway safety objection failed. Under S4, the limited benefit of two extra rooms was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶29).

## What made the difference
The tree. An unprotected street tree was enough, via N2 ("conserve or enhance an existing natural feature"), to carry a substantial-weight S4 refusal against a small HMO scheme. The appellant's radar survey was undermined because it could not detect small roots (DL ¶10). The inspector also refused a split decision, because the extra parking was integral to the larger HMO (DL ¶24).

## Policy findings
- **N2: fail (significant weight).** dropped kerb excavation about 385mm deep into the root protection area of a mature, unprotected street tree; likely loss (DL 8-13, 28)
- **S4(1): fail.** two extra HMO bedrooms (HO7/HO9/TR3/L2) limited weight, substantially outweighed by tree harm (DL 25-29)
- **TR6(4): pass.** 3.2m effective access on a quiet, slow street; no unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 19-21)

## Key facts
- Street tree has no statutory protection; ground radar survey does not detect roots under 20mm (DL 8, 10)
- Split decision (HMO without the kerb) refused because extra parking is integral to the scheme (DL 24)
- Tree called whitebeam at DL 8 and hornbeam at DL 28 - drafting slip; costs application decided separately (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011840
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/21939b30-039d-40a1-953f-45e945c9a34e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011840.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.