Durham HMO appeals: same street, different decisions

Two Durham HMO appeals on the same street have produced different outcomes for the same applicant before the same Inspector. At 55 Bradford Crescent, flexible C3/C4 permission was granted. At 119 Bradford Crescent, updated student-accommodation evidence and cumulative harm led to refusal.

Inspector K Lancaster allowed Sugar Tree Limited’s non-determination appeal 6006352 on 10th September 2026, then dismissed its appeal 6004850 on 16th September 2026. Both site visits took place on 9th July 2026.

Read together, the decisions show why neither an Article 4 Direction nor a request for Class V flexibility settles the planning merits. The evidence for the individual property and the relevant local policy still matter.

This article was first published on 11th September 2026 and updated on 18th September 2026 to compare the second decision with the original successful appeal.

Article 4 required an application, not an automatic refusal

Durham’s relevant Article 4 Direction came into effect on 17th September 2016. It withdrew the ordinary permitted-development route from a C3 dwellinghouse to a C4 HMO.

That meant express planning permission was needed. It did not mean that every HMO application in the area had to be refused.

At No. 55, the Inspector assessed the proposal against the development plan and other material considerations. The scheme would provide four single bedrooms, shared accommodation and an extension, while expressly allowing either C3 dwellinghouse or C4 HMO use.

The successful appeal at No. 55 followed non-determination, rather than an issued refusal. During that appeal, the council clarified that it would have recommended refusal on parking, living-conditions and internal-layout grounds. Both parties had an opportunity to address that position.

Why two Durham HMO appeals ended differently

The shared street, applicant and Inspector make this an unusually useful comparison. Both proposals sought express permission for alternative C3 dwellinghouse and C4 HMO uses, together with a rear extension and cycle parking. Both appeals followed the council’s failure to determine the application.

What Durham’s 10% test actually measures

This is not a national 10% HMO rule. It is the test in Durham’s adopted Policy 16. Its starting point is the proportion of residential units within 100 metres with the Class N student Council Tax exemption, rather than a simple count of every HMO.

Policy 16(3)(a) includes the proposed development when applying the threshold. Criterion (b) separately brings in existing unimplemented HMO permissions, because an approved HMO may not yet appear in the student-exemption records. Criterion (c) addresses residential streets forming a primary route between purpose-built student accommodation and the town centre or a university campus, even where the percentage is below 10%.

The adopted policy uses the wording “will not be permitted if” for these criteria. It also has other requirements and specific exceptions, including circumstances involving concentrations above 90% or predominantly commercial surroundings, subject to their detailed tests. Passing one percentage test does not settle every planning issue.

At No. 119, the appellant relied on the earlier council figure of approximately 6.5%. The Inspector gave significant weight to the more recent April 2026 evidence, which put the combined figure at approximately 10.4%. The decision explains that the underlying Council Tax records are updated twice a year.

At No. 55, the Inspector reported the latest figure as 9.3% and expressly found compliance with the concentration criteria. However, that decision does not separately itemise the proposal, existing permissions or property counts. We cannot independently recalculate either appeal’s percentage from the decision letters.

Do not read 9.3% and 10.4% as a change in the same calculation over six days. They concern different application sites and their respective 100-metre catchments. The decisions do not supply a common property schedule demonstrating that the areas or datasets were identical.

Did a modest exceedance automatically mean refusal?

The Inspector acknowledged that the exceedance at No. 119 was modest. The Inspector nevertheless gave significant weight to the policy conflict because the supporting text explains the 10% figure as a tipping point for the balance between student and other residential occupation.

The Inspector also considered the proposed party-wall soundproofing, an experienced accommodation manager and a management plan. These measures would mitigate some effects and counted in the proposal’s favour. They did not remove the wider concern about the concentration of student accommodation or the additional comings and goings, visitors and domestic activity.

The Inspector found moderate harm to neighbouring living conditions and then carried out a planning balance, including the benefits of additional student accommodation, property investment and management. The refusal therefore involved both the policy threshold and a judgment about the proposal’s cumulative effects. It should not be presented as an arithmetic rule which removed the need for planning judgment.

The flexible permission sought did not change that assessment. No. 119 already had lawful C3 use; the new element was the ability to occupy it as a C4 HMO. The Inspector assessed that additional use against Policy 16. Keeping C3 as an alternative did not cancel the effects of possible HMO occupation.

Planning Geek analysis: check the evidence for this property

The practical lesson is to obtain an up-to-date concentration assessment for the actual application site. Check the policy’s definitions, the date of the dataset, the denominator, the treatment of the proposal and any unimplemented permissions. A figure obtained before an application, or for another house on the same street, may not answer the question at the decision date.

A management plan and sound insulation can address particular effects. Their value depends on the harm identified: they do not necessarily resolve a policy concern about the overall mix of a neighbourhood. The two Durham HMO decisions illustrate that distinction without changing the legal role of Article 4 or Class V.

First came a full planning application

The proposal at No. 55 was a full planning application for flexible use, not a Class V prior-approval application. The owner asked for permission to use the house either as a C3 dwellinghouse or as a C4 HMO, rather than simply asking for a one-way change to C4.

The Inspector assessed that application on its merits and granted the requested flexible permission. Mentioning Class V did not create an entitlement to approval or bypass Article 4.

The new permission granted on 10th September 2026 is the permission on which Class V relies. The property did not need an older flexible-use permission in its planning history: obtaining one was the purpose of this application and appeal.

What is Class V?

Class V is in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015. Once an express permission specifically authorises alternative uses, Class V can enable later changes between those uses, within its statutory limits.

For example, suppose the Durham property becomes a C4 HMO under the new permission. It could later change to C3 occupation and then return to C4, relying on the alternatives expressly authorised by that same permission and the Class V right.

Those later changes must still comply with the permission and Class V’s limitations. It is not a general right to move between arbitrary use classes.

The sequence is: obtain flexible permission first; use Class V for qualifying later changes. It has nothing to do with preserving a permitted-development right which existed before Article 4 took effect.

Class V and Class L are not the same thing

Class L itself grants specified permitted-development rights between C3 and C4, subject to its limitations and any relevant withdrawal of those rights.

Class V depends on an express planning permission specifically authorising the alternatives. Obtaining that permission was the essential first step at Bradford Crescent.

This distinction matters in an Article 4 area. An owner with only a C4 permission should not assume that returning to C3 guarantees a later return to C4 under Class L.

The limits on flexible use

The current Class V wording contains an important time limit: the change must not be carried out more than ten years after the grant of the express permission. This is an outer limit, not a requirement to wait ten years.

For the permission at No. 55, the clock starts on 10th September 2026. A qualifying change in 2030 or 2033 would be within that period; one in 2037 would not. Each switch does not restart the clock, and the rule does not look backwards for an old C3-to-C4 permitted-development right.

It also excludes permissions based on applications made before 5th December 1988, changes to a betting office or payday loan shop, and a change which would breach a condition, limitation or specification in the permission governing the use.

The ten-year restriction concerns use of the Class V change-of-use right. It is not the commencement period for building works, and it does not itself require an otherwise lawful use to reverse on the tenth anniversary.

At No. 55 Bradford Crescent, the permission carries a three-year commencement condition and requirements addressing the approved plans, a Student Management Plan, cycle storage and noise insulation.

Does Class V require notification of each switch?

Class V itself does not contain such a notification requirement. Its operative provision and limitations do not require an application for prior approval or prescribe a notice before each change.

Paragraph W, which follows Class V in Part 3, deals with prior-approval procedures where the relevant permitted-development right requires an application. It does not impose a separate notification procedure on Class V.

This matters because paragraph 41 of appeal 6006352 at 55 Bradford Crescent refers to notification requirements being governed by other statutory provisions. The decision does not identify the provision or explain the procedure it had in mind.

It would therefore be wrong to turn that sentence into an invented Class V notice form or deadline. Any separate obligation, including one arising under another regulatory regime or an express condition, must be checked on its own terms.

The Inspector rejected a proposed condition controlling the flexible use on the basis that duplicating the statutory regime was unnecessary. That illustrates the need for necessary planning conditions; it does not establish a new notification procedure.

Why the parking objection at No. 55 failed

The property had no off-street parking, none was proposed, and the scheme fell short of the council’s parking standard.

The Inspector considered the actual street conditions: relatively wide carriageways and footways, established on-street parking, no apparent obstruction during the visit, and proposed secure cycle storage. The highway authority had not objected.

Policy TR6 in the August 2026 NPPF requires refusal for severe adverse transport-network impacts in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative impacts, or unacceptable highway-safety impacts, taking mitigation and wider improvements into account.

The Inspector found no substantive evidence that the additional parking demand would produce that harm. The result was a site-specific assessment, not a rule that parking standards can be ignored.

Where parking pressure is disputed, proportionate evidence matters. Our parking-stress survey guide explains one established survey approach, without making it a universal national requirement.

The shower-room escape objection at No. 55

The council questioned the escape route from the ground-floor shower room through the kitchen. However, it had not identified a planning policy or technical standard requiring the alternative route sought.

Its own HMO team confirmed that the relevant window-escape requirement concerned Bedroom 2, not the shower room.

That did not remove fire-safety duties, HMO licensing or Building Regulations. It meant this particular planning objection lacked the supporting requirement claimed for it.

The rear extension was also assessed against the existing outbuilding it would replace. Its comparable projection and scale were important to the finding of no material harm to neighbouring outlook, daylight or privacy.

Planning Geek analysis: obtain the right permission first

The lesson is not that Class V overrides Article 4. It is that an applicant may seek a properly drafted flexible permission, which must first succeed on its planning merits.

Keep the authorised alternatives, conditions and statutory time limit together in the property’s planning record. Article 4, HMO concentration, parking evidence and the mechanism for later changes are related questions, but they are not the same question.

Read both Durham HMO appeal decisions

• 55 Bradford Crescent: appeal 6006352, allowed on 10th September 2026, application DM/26/00072/FPA, including the conditions
• 119 Bradford Crescent: appeal 6004850, dismissed on 16th September 2026, application DM/25/03413/FPA

Read Policy 16 in the adopted County Durham Plan, particularly Part 3 on printed pages 108 and 109 and the supporting explanation at paragraphs 5.150 to 5.165. The August 2026 NPPF is also hosted by Planning Geek.

This report separates the Inspector’s findings from Planning Geek’s analysis of the paired decisions and Class V’s statutory wording.

Report first published: 11th September 2026. Comparative update: 18th September 2026