A Coventry appeal over a proposed supported HMO has been dismissed after the Inspector found insufficient evidence on HMO concentration, parking capacity, the operation of the supported accommodation and the specific housing need the scheme was intended to meet.
Appeal 6008646, concerning 52 Hugh Road, is a useful reminder that an HMO Article 4 Direction removes the permitted development route from C3 to C4. It does not create a planning policy that automatically requires permission to be refused. Once an application is needed, the proposal still has to be assessed on its planning merits and on the evidence before the decision-maker.
A C3 dwellinghouse proposed as a C4 supported HMO
The appeal property at 52 Hugh Road was a four-bedroom Use Class C3 dwellinghouse. Mr Usman Raza of Evita Social Housing sought permission to change it to a small Use Class C4 HMO for supported housing.
Coventry’s Article 4 Direction has removed the Class L permitted development right for C3 to C4 changes of use in the affected area since 30th September 2023. That meant planning permission was required.
The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after Coventry City Council refused the application. Inspector R Standfield visited the site on 29th June 2026 and dismissed the appeal on 14th September 2026.
The main issues were the effect on the balance of housing provision and parking.
Coventry’s 10% HMO concentration policy
Coventry adopted its Homes in Multiple Occupation Development Plan Document on 26th March 2025.
Policy HMO2 uses a maximum HMO concentration of 10% within a 100-metre radius of the application site. The DPD treats that threshold as a tipping point beyond which HMO concentration is likely to affect residential amenity, neighbourhood character, housing choice and community cohesion.
The key point in this appeal is that the Inspector was not presented with a robust agreed calculation.
Coventry’s delegated officer report recorded an existing concentration of 19%, relying on HMO licensing information and Council Tax data. The appellant used licensing and available mapping data and argued that there was no oversupply and that the proposal would not create a sandwiching effect.
But neither side supplied the detailed underlying evidence needed for the Inspector to establish which calculation was correct.
The Inspector did not simply accept the council’s 19%
This distinction matters for practitioners.
The appeal was not dismissed because the Inspector independently verified that 19% of nearby dwellings were HMOs. He expressly said he did not have enough information to ascertain the correct position.
The difficulty for the appellant was that the evidence before the Inspector did not adequately demonstrate that the development would not contribute to a harmful concentration of HMO uses.
That is a more useful lesson than treating the decision as an endorsement of one council spreadsheet. If concentration is disputed, the calculation needs to be capable of being checked. The addresses counted, the denominator, licensing records, Council Tax information, planning history and any other data relied upon should be set out clearly enough for the decision-maker to understand and test the result.
Article 4 was the gateway, not the reason for refusal
The Article 4 Direction explains why an application was required. It does not itself establish that another C4 HMO would be unacceptable.
The planning merits were assessed against the HMO DPD, the Coventry Local Plan and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
That distinction is important in any Article 4 area. Removing permitted development rights restores normal development management control. The council must still determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Supported accommodation needed more than a label
The proposal was expressly described as supported accommodation. The appellant said residents would have support workers, supervision, vetting and monitoring, and that management would reduce the potential for noise nuisance and disturbance.
The Inspector accepted that supported accommodation could operate differently from an ordinary HMO. But there was minimal compelling evidence showing how those arrangements would work in practice.
That meant the claimed management benefits could not simply be assumed.
For a supported HMO, useful evidence might include the intended resident group, staffing or visiting arrangements, frequency and duration of support visits, management procedures, vehicle movements, on-call arrangements and any controls that genuinely affect the planning impacts of the use. The precise evidence needed will depend on the proposal, but the operational case has to be more than a general assertion that the property will be managed.
Parking was another evidence problem
Parking on Hugh Road was mainly unrestricted on-street parking. During the Inspector’s weekday afternoon site visit, few spaces were available.
The proposal increased the assessed parking requirement from two spaces to three, while the site itself provided little cycle-storage capacity.
The Inspector recognised that supported accommodation may have lower resident car ownership and that shops, services and bus routes were within walking distance. Those were genuine points in the appellant’s favour.
But lower resident car ownership did not resolve the issue. Depending on the type of support provided, staff and other visitors could also generate vehicle movements.
There was no detailed evidence of existing parking patterns and capacity, and insufficient information about the care or support arrangements from which likely visitor demand could be assessed. The Inspector therefore found that the proposal had not demonstrated that sufficient parking would be available without harm to highway safety and residential amenity.
The August 2026 NPPF did not remove the need to prove housing need
The 2026 NPPF had been published on 17th August 2026. Both parties were given an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework before the appeal was decided.
Policy H07 says substantial weight should be given to the benefits of homes contributing towards the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, identified through local authority needs assessments and other relevant evidence.
The appellant argued that the development would help reduce homelessness, support vulnerable residents, increase housing mix and make effective use of the existing housing stock. Reference was also made to Coventry’s Strategic Statement for Supported Exempt Accommodation.
However, that document was not supplied to the Inspector and there was no robust evidence demonstrating the particular need for the proposed accommodation. The Inspector therefore gave the housing-need benefit reduced weight.
This is a significant practical point under H07. The policy does not turn a description such as ‘supported housing’ into an evidenced need. The link between the proposed homes and an identified accommodation need still has to be demonstrated.
H11 was not determinative
Coventry had also cited Local Plan Policy H11, which deals with purpose-built HMOs and conversions to large HMOs.
The Inspector noted that the proposal was for a small C4 HMO and did not regard H11 as determinative. The appeal nevertheless failed on the HMO2 concentration issue and parking, together with the overall planning balance.
The planning balance
The Inspector found conflict with the development plan as a whole because the proposal had not demonstrated an appropriate balance of housing provision or suitable parking.
He considered the NPPF presumption and settlement policy, together with H07. But the claimed need for the supported accommodation had not been evidenced sufficiently, while the adverse effects identified on HMO concentration and parking carried substantial weight.
The benefits were therefore substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies, and the appeal was dismissed.
Five evidence lessons from appeal 6008646
For applicants, councils and consultants, the decision is a useful checklist rather than a new legal rule.
- HMO concentration: show the addresses, sources and methodology behind the percentage
- Challenge the council’s figure properly: an alternative assertion is not enough if the Inspector cannot verify it
- Parking: provide evidence of actual capacity and likely demand where on-street pressure is disputed
- Supported accommodation: explain how support and management will operate and why that changes the planning impacts
- Housing need: connect the scheme to an identified need with the relevant assessment, strategy or other robust evidence
None of those points means every HMO in an Article 4 area should be refused. The lesson is almost the opposite: once the permitted development route has been removed, evidence becomes critical to the merits of the planning application.
Primary sources
Read the locally hosted Planning Geek copy of appeal decision 6008646.
View the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.
Coventry Homes in Multiple Occupation Development Plan Document.
Coventry’s HMO Article 4 information.
National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026.
Published: 15th September 2026
0 Comments