40 Gladstone Street, Scarborough (house to 7-bed HMO)

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Caines

Authority

North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6012886

Application reference

26/00313/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of a mid-terrace house (C3) to a 7-bedroom HMO (revised to 7 persons at appeal)

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

P3, S4(1)

Development plan policies

Scarborough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC4, Scarborough HMO SPD 2015

Main issues

living conditions of neighbours; parking

Summary

A seven-bedroom HMO in a Scarborough mid-terrace would leave the neighbouring house sandwiched between two HMOs and add to heavy parking stress. The inspector found that the extra external activity of seven unrelated occupants could not be controlled by conditions, and gave the six-person permitted development fallback limited weight. Under S4 the moderate benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The appellant has provided additional comments concerning the relevance of the revised Framework" (DL ¶3).
• Plan weight. DEC4 "is broadly consistent with the Framework’s policies relating to the provision of healthy living conditions and quality of life, and I therefore afford the policy full weight" (DL ¶6); DEC1 likewise (DL ¶20).
• Living conditions: HARM. "the concern is not that future occupiers would behave unreasonably, but that occupation by seven unrelated individuals within a constrained terraced property would be likely to result in a materially greater level of day-to-day activity" (DL ¶10). An occupancy cap "would be difficult to monitor and enforce effectively in practice" (DL ¶13).
• Parking: HARM. "there is no planning mechanism before me that would prevent future occupiers from using private vehicles and obtaining parking permits" (DL ¶17).
• Fallback. A six-person HMO is realistic but less intensive, so limited weight (DL ¶21).

Planning balance

S4(1): benefits moderate weight; living-conditions harm significant and parking harm moderate; "the adverse effects of the proposal would substantially outweigh its benefits. Consequently, the proposal fails to satisfy Policy S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶24-25).

What made the difference

The sandwiching of No 42 and a constrained yard. A smaller HMO within the fallback, or a site without a neighbouring HMO, would have faced a different test.

Transferable points

• HMO harm can arise from ordinary external activity, which management plans cannot prevent (DL ¶10-13).
• Occupancy caps are hard to enforce where rooms can take more than one person (DL ¶13).
• A permitted development fallback of a smaller HMO gets limited weight if the scheme is more intensive (DL ¶21, ¶23).
• Local amenity and parking policies consistent with the Framework keep full weight (DL ¶6, ¶20).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• SPD 10% threshold within 100 m not exceeded, but four HMOs in a 200 m street length and sandwiching of No 42 (DL 9)
• Six-person HMO fallback (C4 permitted development) realistic but less intensive; limited weight (DL 21, 23)
• DEC1 and DEC4 "broadly consistent" with the Framework and given full weight (DL 6, 20)
• Appellant commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)

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.