A Bristol HMO appeal has been allowed for an eight-person shared house after an Inspector found that the city council had misread the plans for communal space and cycle parking. Bristol City Council must also pay part of the developer’s appeal costs, although its separate concerns about noise were not unreasonable.
The decision, issued on 22nd October 2026 by Inspector N Perrins, concerns 172 Filton Avenue in Horfield. It allows the conversion of an existing six-person Use Class C4 house in multiple occupation to a large, eight-person sui generis HMO, with two bedrooms in a new rear outbuilding.
For me, the striking feature of this Bristol HMO appeal is the separation between a planning disagreement that an authority is entitled to have and refusal reasons that cannot be reconciled with its own plans and guidance. The costs decision makes that difference unusually clear.
Why the Bristol HMO appeal succeeded
Kasa Real Estate Ltd, represented in the appeal by Mr Padbury, challenged refusal of application 25/13809/F. The proposed works included demolishing an existing garage and building an annexe with two bedrooms, its own shower room and the property’s communal living room. The main house would retain a kitchen and dining area.
There was already a lawful small HMO for up to six occupiers, confirmed by certificate of lawfulness 22/04369/CE. The council had also granted permission in 2024 for an outbuilding for use as study space. The Inspector treated both as important parts of the baseline against which additional noise and activity should be assessed.
The council’s concerns focused on increased garden movements, adequate communal living accommodation and whether residents could store and retrieve bicycles without going through the main house. Those were legitimate planning questions, but they required different answers on the evidence.
Noise fears were considered, but not decisive
The new annexe would be used by two residents who would cross the garden to cook and eat in the main house. Other occupiers would also visit the annexe’s communal living room. The council’s Pollution Control officer worried about activity and disturbance, particularly in the evenings.
However, the garden was already used by six HMO residents, and an extant permission for the study outbuilding would itself generate some movements. The Inspector regarded the extra journeys associated with two bedrooms as intermittent, domestic and limited in scale.
The communal living room would be in the detached building, away from the neighbours’ party walls and with its windows oriented towards Wessex Court. There was no objective evidence of existing noise complaints or management problems, or that the additional occupation would cause unacceptable harm.
That is not a general licence to intensify every HMO. The Bristol HMO appeal was determined against the actual lawful use, a specific approved outbuilding scheme and the location of the proposed shared room. The Inspector concluded that an increase from six to eight residents would not materially damage neighbours’ living conditions.
The council compared the wrong room areas
On communal accommodation, the refusal reason described a 17.6 square metre kitchen and compared it with a 24 square metre standard. Yet 17.6 square metres was the existing kitchen and dining area. The new plans showed that room enlarged to approximately 20.3 square metres by removing an internal wall.
More importantly, the council’s own HMO Supplementary Planning Document required at least 24 square metres of total communal living space for eight people, not a kitchen of that size on its own. The proposed annexe contained a further communal living room of about 13.6 square metres, taking combined communal accommodation to roughly 34 square metres.
The Inspector found that the proposal met the guidance. Its bedrooms, bathrooms and WC facilities were not disputed. Residents of the annexe would cross a short distance to reach the kitchen, but they would have a shower room and shared lounge within their building.
In the Bristol HMO appeal costs ruling, this was the first finding of unreasonable behaviour. The council had not merely exercised planning judgement differently: it had relied on an incorrect reading of the drawings and had applied the communal-space guidance to the wrong measurement.
Ten cycle spaces and a condition resolved access
The third refusal reason claimed that residents could only reach cycle storage through internal living accommodation and that eight spaces had not been demonstrated. Yet drawing 114 showed a covered shelter for ten cycles, and the site plan showed a path beside the outbuilding leading to the rear boundary.
The Inspector saw an existing gate onto Wessex Court. A neighbour questioned rights over that road, but private rights of way were not for the planning appeal to determine. The planning drawings indicated a possible accessible solution, which could be clarified and secured by a condition.
The permission accordingly requires approved details of secure, covered storage for at least eight bicycles and a route from the public highway that does not pass through the main house. Neither the annexe bedrooms nor their additional occupiers may use the facilities before the storage is delivered.
For costs purposes, the Inspector regarded the council’s statements about the proposed access and capacity as inaccurate. A proportionate request for clarification or a condition could have dealt with any remaining uncertainty. That was the second ground on which the Bristol HMO appeal attracted a partial costs award.
Why the costs award was only partial
The applicant had sought costs concerning all three reasons for refusal. Inspector Perrins rejected the complaint about noise. Although the Inspector disagreed with the council’s eventual conclusion, its concerns were grounded in advice from its Pollution Control officer and the planning history. Such a judgement, properly evidenced, is not automatically unreasonable.
The partial award covers only expenses incurred addressing the communal space and cycle-storage refusal reasons. The parties must agree the amount or have it assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office. It would be inaccurate to describe this decision as a full costs award or to suggest that every rejected refusal reason automatically produces compensation.
The consent itself includes conditions limiting occupation to eight persons, requiring the annexe to remain part of the HMO rather than a separate dwelling, retaining its shared living room, securing cycle and bin storage and restricting new openings facing neighbours.
Importantly, the Bristol HMO appeal does not decide licensing standards, which are a separate regulatory matter. Nor does it establish that rear-annexe bedrooms are acceptable in every HMO. It shows that a planning authority must read the application accurately and apply its standards to the accommodation actually proposed.
What applicants and councils should take away
Developers can help avoid disputes by making floor areas and pedestrian or cycle routes unmistakable on drawings, and explaining the lawful use against which any intensification should be judged. Bristol’s case also shows why a clear schedule of existing and proposed communal floor space is worth including with an HMO application.
For decision-makers, the lesson is equally practical. Before issuing a refusal, cross-check the reason against the submitted plans, the precise language of any adopted or supplementary standards, and whether a reasonable planning condition could resolve a genuine concern. Costs may follow where assertions are unsupported and cause avoidable appeal expense.
This is a useful allowed appeal, not a binding court judgment. For wider background on use classes and when a change of use needs permission, see our change of use guide. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record 6011341 provides the official decision details.
0 Comments