# 39 Cowling Brow, Chorley (5-bedroom HMO)

- **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Walker
- **Authority:** Chorley (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6013087
- **Application reference:** 25/01250/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use of a two-bedroom dwelling to a five-bedroom HMO
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4
- **Development plan policies:** Chorley Local Plan 2015 ST4, BNE1, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 6
- **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety (parking), neighbours' noise and disturbance, future occupiers' living conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, retrospective, parking, noise, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A retrospective change of use of a small Chorley terrace house to a five-bedroom HMO. On-street parking had spare capacity, noise could be controlled by a management plan and sound insulation, and there was no overconcentration. With no harm and no conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies, S4 pointed to approval. Allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The main parties "had opportunities to comment on any implications for the appeal of this change as part of the normal appeal process" (DL ¶2).
- **Parking: NO HARM.** "even with an increase in parking demand I do not consider that this would lead to a significant adverse effect on highway or pedestrian safety" (DL ¶9).
- **Noise: NO HARM with conditions.** "I accept that there can be no cast iron guarantee that problems of noise and disturbance will not arise from the HMO use, as this will depend on the particular group of occupiers. However, such an argument would also apply to a C3 dwelling" (DL ¶14).
- **Space standards.** NDSS "does not provide guidance for HMOs" (DL ¶18).
- **S4: APPROVE.** "I have not identified any unacceptable harm in the main issues or conflicts with national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
S4 with no harm, and accords with the development plan (DL ¶24, ¶29).

## What made the difference
No overconcentration and street capacity for parking. Contrast the same inspector's Preston decision, PINS-6009669, dismissed where five HMOs were clustered nearby.

## Transferable points
- Uncertainty about future HMO occupiers' behaviour is not a reason for refusal, since the same applies to a C3 house; management and insulation conditions address it (DL ¶14–15).
- NDSS does not apply to HMOs; room adequacy is a planning judgement (DL ¶18–19).

## Policy findings
- **TR3: pass.** TR3(1)(c) highway safety; ST4/BNE1 "broadly consistent"; modest extra parking demand on streets with spare capacity; no safety harm (DL 5-10)
- **DP3(2)(a): pass.** CS Policy 6 and BNE1 consistent with DP3 liveability; noise controlled by management plan and sound insulation conditions; no overconcentration shown (DL 13-16, 21-22)
- **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan "little weight" (DL 3)
- **S4: pass.** no unacceptable harm or conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies, so approve (DL 23-24)

## Key facts
- Corner terrace; bedrooms one to three small and irregular but overall not cramped; NDSS not applicable to HMOs (DL 18-19)
- Retrospective use; conditions require a management plan and sound insulation within 3 months, cycle parking, and max 5 occupiers (Schedule 2-5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013087
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/553ef4e1-4c82-4e3c-b629-70177a280d20

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013087.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.