A Derby HMO has won permission to increase its occupancy from six to eight residents, despite concerns about its communal kitchen. Inspector J Buxton allowed the Redshaw Street appeal on 12th October 2026, overturning Derby City Council’s refusal of application 26/00510/FUL.
The property is an existing lawful HMO in a mid-terrace house, and the proposal does not add bedrooms or change the building’s exterior. Instead, two larger rooms would each accommodate two residents. The Inspector assessed the accommodation as a whole and found the increase would provide acceptable living conditions.
I would treat this as a decision about the evidence inside this particular building. It does not establish that a small kitchen is always acceptable, or that planning permission replaces an HMO licence. The permission limits occupation to eight people, while any cooking-facility requirements through licensing remain a separate matter.
What the Derby HMO permission changes
The appeal moves the Derby HMO from a six-person HMO in Use Class C4 to an eight-person HMO outside the standard use classes, commonly described as sui generis. That change in planning use required the permission now granted. It was not simply an application to approve alterations to the house.
The Inspector recorded that there would be no external alteration, internal reconfiguration or increase in bedroom numbers. Two particularly spacious bedrooms would be used by two residents each. The physical building remained the basis of the assessment rather than a redesigned scheme with new shared facilities.
For the Derby HMO, the main issue was whether those additional occupants would have acceptable living conditions, particularly in relation to communal accommodation. The council’s concerns focused on the kitchen’s modest size, its lack of natural light and the risk of residents becoming overly dependent on their bedrooms.
That is a practical issue for both landlords and residents. A building can fit more beds without necessarily functioning well as shared accommodation. Here, the Inspector considered how residents would actually use the rooms and cooking facilities, rather than relying only on the proposed occupancy figure.
A modest kitchen did not decide the whole case
The Inspector accepted that the communal kitchen was relatively small and lacked natural light. Those shortcomings were not ignored. He referred to the National Design Guide’s emphasis on good internal space, daylight and ventilation, while considering the quality of the accommodation as a whole.
His site visit on 29th September 2026 found bedrooms of a high standard, with generous dimensions and ensuite facilities. The rooms proposed for double occupation were particularly spacious. Cooking and storage facilities within those rooms would reduce reliance on the shared kitchen for everyday activities.
The Derby HMO decision therefore turns on the relationship between private and shared facilities. The Inspector concluded that the kitchen’s shortcomings would not materially undermine the overall quality available to residents when the bedroom standards and in-room facilities were considered together.
I would use that reasoning to identify the evidence needed for a comparable proposal, rather than to argue that communal accommodation does not matter. Room layouts, sizes, cooking arrangements and the intended pattern of occupation need to be understood together. A different building could produce a different conclusion.
The Housing Standards Team supported eight occupants
The council’s Housing Standards Team raised no objection to eight residents and confirmed that several bedrooms could accommodate more than one person. The Inspector attached considerable weight to that specialist assessment of the property’s suitability as HMO accommodation.
The team did identify that improvements to cooking facilities might be needed through the separate licensing regime. The Inspector expressly kept that issue outside the scope of the planning appeal. It did not, on the evidence before him, mean the accommodation was unsuitable for eight residents in planning terms.
For the Derby HMO, that distinction prevents an important misunderstanding. An allowed planning appeal does not certify that every licensing requirement has been met. The decision accepts the planning proposal, but the operator must still address the requirements applying through the separate housing regulation process.
Nor does the presence of cooking facilities in some bedrooms establish a permission for independent flats. The approved proposal remains an HMO with an eight-person occupancy limit. The decision should be read against the application description and approved plans, rather than stretched into approval for a different arrangement.
No identified minimum communal floorspace standard
The Inspector recorded that no adopted planning policy, supplementary planning document or other quantitative standard had been identified specifying minimum communal floorspace for development of this type. That was part of his assessment of whether the council’s concern had sufficient evidential support.
He did not say that the council was unable to exercise planning judgement without a numerical standard. Instead, he found limited substantive evidence showing that the facilities would be inadequate for eight people or that the increase would result in materially poor living conditions.
The Derby HMO outcome shows why the precise refusal reason and supporting evidence matter. A concern about quality must be assessed against the building and proposal. Here, generous bedrooms, ensuite facilities, cooking provision in some rooms and specialist support all helped answer the concern about the shared kitchen.
I would not extract a universal minimum kitchen size from this decision. It gives no such rule. Its value is in explaining why this building met the relevant planning policies, including CP3 and CP4 of Derby’s Core Strategy and GD5 and H13 of the Local Plan Review.
Parking, noise and other residents’ concerns
Neighbours raised concerns about parking pressure and road safety. The highway authority concluded that two additional occupants would not cause an unacceptable safety effect or severe impact on the surrounding network. The Inspector found no substantive evidence that justified a different conclusion.
Noise, disturbance, bin storage and local character were also considered. The Inspector accepted that activity would increase modestly, but found the likely effects of two extra residents limited. He concluded that they would not cause unacceptable disturbance or materially harm neighbours’ living conditions.
Because the proposal did not change the building’s exterior, it would not materially affect the street’s appearance. A concern about removal of an entrance gate also did not alter the outcome: the proposal being determined concerned occupancy, and did not include changes to access arrangements.
These findings remain specific to the evidence at Redshaw Street. They do not say that adding two occupants is always harmless. For another HMO, the existing use, surrounding properties, parking evidence and actual proposed changes may require a different assessment.
An enforceable eight-person limit
The official appeal decision imposes a condition stating that the HMO shall be occupied by no more than eight persons at any one time
. The limit forms part of the permission and reflects the proposal assessed by the Inspector.
There are also conditions requiring commencement within three years and compliance with the named plans. Those plans cover the location and block plan, floor plans and elevations. The approval cannot safely be treated as an open-ended permission to keep increasing the number of residents.
Our HMO planning guide explains the wider questions about use classes, occupancy and planning permission. I would check the planning history and conditions alongside the licence position before changing occupation, because either process may contain relevant limits.
This is an English Inspector’s appeal decision, reference 6013630, rather than court case law. The central lesson is a measured one: the quality of shared accommodation should be assessed as a whole, with clear evidence, while planning permission and licensing remain separate responsibilities.
0 Comments