In this case, our client appealed against an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Newham alleging an unlawful change of use of a house to a small house in multiple occupation (HMO).
The enforcement notice required the use of the property as a HMO to cease. We appealed the notice under ground (a), asking the inspector to consider whether planning permission should be granted for the HMO use.
The main issues in the appeal were whether the HMO would cause unacceptable harm to the supply of family housing in the borough and whether it would harm living conditions, particularly through noise and disturbance .
Family housing and Article 4
Newham has an Article 4 direction in place, introduced because of concerns about the loss of family housing to HMOs. The council argued that allowing the HMO would result in the loss of a much-needed family house and would conflict with its Local Plan policies.
The inspector accepted that the property was a two-storey, five-bedroom house in an area largely characterised by family housing. However, he did not accept that the loss of this particular dwelling would have a significant or material impact on the supply of family housing in the area.
He noted that each HMO proposal must be assessed on its own merits and found no evidence of an over-concentration of HMOs in this location. He also concluded that, given the scale, layout and position of the property, the HMO would make a valuable contribution to the local housing mix and would not undermine community cohesion or stabilisation .
Living conditions
The council also raised concerns about noise, disturbance and the standard of accommodation.
The inspector rejected these arguments. He found that the property was of a size and layout that could reasonably accommodate a small HMO, with adequate storage, circulation space and access to amenity space. He did not consider the accommodation to be low quality or undersized.
In terms of impact on neighbours, the inspector was not persuaded that the use as a small HMO would result in any material harm. He noted that any increase in comings and goings would be unlikely to be noticeable and that there was no evidence of complaints or disturbance arising from the use.
The decision
The appeal was allowed. The enforcement notice was quashed and planning permission was granted for the HMO use under the deemed application route.
This case is a useful reminder that, even in boroughs with strict policies and Article 4 directions, enforcement action must be justified by evidence. A general policy objection is not enough on its own. Inspectors will look closely at the specific property, its context and whether any real harm arises.
If you are facing planning enforcement action in Newham in relation to an alleged HMO, it is important to take advice early. In some cases, an enforcement appeal may be the appropriate route.
Learn more about HMOs here, or by reading Martin Gaine’s book Planning for HMOs.
