An Article 4 appeal has allowed a house in Plumstead, south-east London, to change from a family dwelling to a six-person house in multiple occupation (HMO), despite an Article 4 Direction removing the normal permitted development route. Inspector K Dryden granted planning permission for 36 Dallin Road on 22nd October 2026.
The appeal arose because the Royal Borough of Greenwich had not decided application 26/0716/F within the required period. The council subsequently indicated that it would not contest the appeal. Residents raised concerns about losing a family home, the concentration of HMOs, noise, parking, refuse and management, but the Inspector found insufficient evidence that the proposal would cause unacceptable planning harm.
For owners and neighbours, I think the Article 4 appeal makes an important distinction. An Article 4 Direction takes away specified permitted development rights; it does not prohibit an application for the change of use, nor does it automatically justify refusing one. Planning merits still need to be assessed and supported by the evidence.
What the Greenwich Article 4 appeal actually permitted
The approved proposal changes 36 Dallin Road, Plumstead, from Use Class C3 to a Class C4 HMO for up to six people. The application included cycle and refuse storage in the front garden, as well as plans for associated alterations. The Inspector’s decision is an individual permission under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, following an appeal against non-determination, not a general permission for other properties in the borough.
In England, a change from C3 to C4 can ordinarily benefit from rights under the General Permitted Development Order, subject to conditions and restrictions. Here, the Inspector recorded that an Article 4 Direction removed those rights for the relevant change. That made a planning application necessary even though the proposed occupation fell within the small-HMO class rather than the larger sui generis category.
The Inspector was not simply choosing between tenants and homeowners. The statutory planning exercise focused on the site’s lawful baseline, the proposed use, development plan policies, national policy and evidence of effects on the surrounding area. The council’s decision not to contest the appeal did not relieve the Inspector of considering representations from interested parties.
Planning Geek’s Article 4 Direction guide and HMO planning guide explain how the controls operate outside this individual case.
Why housing mix and HMO concentration objections fell short
The objectors said that the conversion would remove a family-sized home and add another HMO in a street already experiencing demand for rented shared accommodation. Those concerns were relevant to consider, but the Inspector needed evidence linking them to conflict with applicable policy or actual planning harm.
Greenwich indicated that its 2014 Core Strategy did not contain a policy specifically protecting family-sized dwellings from this conversion or limiting the concentration of HMOs within a defined area. Residents referred to HMO licensing activity and another HMO nearby, but the Inspector had not been provided with adequate details to demonstrate that the proposal would produce an unbalanced mix of housing in the locality.
The Article 4 appeal therefore did not succeed because HMO concentration is irrelevant everywhere. It succeeded on the evidence and policies available for this specific application. Different councils may have different adopted policies, and different streets may have demonstrable problems. Both need to be tested rather than assumed.
The Inspector also considered an earlier refusal involving a seven-person sui generis HMO on the property. That was a different proposal, with a larger number of occupants, and the earlier decision was not treated as determinative of the six-person Class C4 scheme. This is another reason to avoid presenting the outcome as approval of any larger HMO proposal.
Why noise, parking and access did not defeat permission
The Inspector accepted that six unrelated residents could generate more comings and goings than some single households, but did not find a significant harmful increase in noise or disturbance on the evidence. A family of similar size could also generate activity. Concerns about antisocial behaviour and transient occupancy were not supported by evidence demonstrating that those consequences would arise from this proposal.
Parking evidence was disputed, including comments challenging a survey submitted with the application. The Inspector did not find substantive grounds for rejecting its findings as a whole or sufficient evidence that the HMO would create harmful additional parking demand. Bus services and local facilities offered realistic alternatives to private cars, despite the property’s position on a hill.
The submitted scheme also provided secured cycle storage and a dedicated bin area to the front. These facilities were significant practical details rather than a cosmetic add-on. Conditions require cycle storage to be available before first occupation and maintained thereafter, together with five 240-litre refuse and recycling bins.
For this Article 4 appeal, the combination of actual travel opportunities, a submitted management proposal and measures capable of being conditioned helped address several objections. None of that means every HMO automatically has acceptable parking, noise or waste arrangements.
Planning conditions still place real obligations on the HMO
Permission is subject to a maximum occupancy of six residents. It also requires an operational management plan before occupation, informed by the applicant’s HMO management material. This must address matters such as regular inspections, records and a contact telephone number available to neighbours around the clock to raise noise or nuisance complaints.
Another condition requires details of sound insulation between relevant rooms and adjoining properties, to be approved and installed before occupation and retained. External materials and approved plans are controlled, and certain future building alterations cannot be carried out without express planning permission notwithstanding ordinary permitted development rights.
The Inspector made clear that fire safety, security and aspects of HMO management also engage separate HMO licensing law. Granting planning permission does not remove the need to comply with that regime. It is equally important not to confuse mandatory licensing, selective or additional licensing, and planning permission, because their legal functions differ.
I think the outcome of the Article 4 appeal shows how permission can be granted subject to safeguards where unsupported general objections would not justify refusal. However, conditions must be complied with; their existence is not a licence to disregard impacts after occupation.
What applicants can learn from the Article 4 appeal
Applicants in an Article 4 area should begin with the actual wording and geographic coverage of the Direction, then examine the adopted and emerging policies that apply to their site. A proposal for a six-person Class C4 HMO may receive a different assessment from a seven or eight-person sui generis HMO, especially where policy deals with concentrations, dwelling loss, space standards or amenity.
The evidential submission should address bedrooms and communal accommodation, management, bin and cycle storage, travel patterns, neighbouring living conditions and the dwelling’s existing use. Local experience can identify genuine issues, but specific evidence matters more than assumptions about how tenants might behave. An Inspector must assess the proposal on its merits.
The case also warns applicants not to rely on a council’s lack of opposition as a substitute for their own documentation. In this Article 4 appeal, local objections still received detailed consideration, and the permission was conditioned to manage identified risks.
Planning Geek explains the wider policy tests in its HMO planning policies guide and the practical requirements in its HMO application guide.
Read the full Planning Inspectorate decision (PDF), or see the official appeal record for case 6013713.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments