A house in multiple occupation (HMO) lawfulness appeal in Exeter has failed after an Inspector found that adding a third independent household to a modest terraced house amounted to a material change of use.
Inspector Andy Harwood dismissed appeal APP/Y1110/X/25/3372254 on 28 October 2026. This HMO lawfulness appeal concerned a certificate for the existing use of a property in Abbots Road as a three-person house in multiple occupation within Use Class C4.
The significant point is not simply the number of occupants. The Inspector examined what changed when two people occupying separately became three separate households, and whether the altered pattern of living was materially different in planning terms.
Why the HMO lawfulness appeal returned to Exeter
The building is a modest three-bedroom house, with a communal kitchen, one bathroom and water closet (WC), open-plan living and dining space, a utility room and a small rear garden. Before September 2022 it had two occupants; it later accommodated three.
A previous Inspector had already considered the property’s status when used by two residents and found it to be a Class C3 dwellinghouse. That history matters because the fresh HMO lawfulness appeal was about whether introducing another independent household crossed the planning threshold, not whether every shared home is automatically an HMO in planning law.
The owner requested a certificate of lawful existing use on 21 November 2024. Exeter City Council refused on 6 February 2025, and the new appeal asked the Inspector to find that the existing C4 use was lawful without the need for fresh planning permission.
Planning Geek’s guide to establishing a lawful HMO explains why certificates depend on the relevant history and evidence, rather than only on the property’s current marketing description.
How one additional household can change planning use
Under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a change of use requires planning permission where it is material. Moving between labels in the Use Classes Order may be relevant, but the Inspector stressed that a shift between use classes is not, by itself, a complete test of materiality.
At Abbots Road, the third occupant did not require walls to be moved, extra bathrooms to be installed or locks to be fitted to bedroom doors. Nevertheless, each resident occupied a separate household, with private sleeping accommodation and shared kitchen, bathroom and living areas.
The Inspector wrote: the change is not solely one of inhabitants but one of household composition.
That short observation captures why the HMO lawfulness appeal turned on how the building functioned, rather than the mere addition of another person.
The Inspector considered that sharing a single bathroom and WC between three households reduced the degree of exclusive use available to residents. Separate working patterns and visitor movements also had the potential to change activity in the street.
These were matters bearing on the character of the use. The Inspector did not grant or refuse planning permission on the merits of a proposed HMO, and the decision should not be presented as an assessment of whether three people would be suitable occupants.
Street parking, neighbours and the character of occupation
Abbots Road has terraced houses with short front gardens and roadside parking on a narrow street. In the Inspector’s view, an additional independently occupied household could generate different patterns of arrivals, visitors, storage, refuse and parking demand.
Parking permit restrictions were discussed, but they did not establish that occupants could not own cars or place pressure on parking. The Inspector also considered correspondence from local residents, together with his site visit and the internal layout of the property.
The resulting conclusion was specific to the site: small individual effects could combine to change the character of occupation materially. In this HMO lawfulness appeal, the absence of building works did not prevent the change from being material.
The decision does not say that every extra occupant causes a material change of use. It distinguishes between the number of people sharing accommodation, the number of independent households and the consequences of that change at a particular property.
What the Exeter Article 4 Direction changes
Ordinarily, Schedule 2 Part 3 Class L of the General Permitted Development Order provides a route for changes between Class C3 dwellinghouses and Class C4 small HMOs. An Article 4 Direction may remove the relevant permitted development right in a defined area, making the underlying material change of use a planning application question.
Inspector Harwood noted an Article 4 restriction in this part of Exeter. That formed part of the planning context for the HMO lawfulness appeal, but readers should distinguish the materiality question from whether permitted development rights were available on the particular date of a change.
Exeter City Council’s published Article 4 information explains that the 2023 Direction took effect on 23 December 2024 and replaced an earlier HMO direction established in 2010 and updated in 2014. The Inspector describes the additional occupation as starting in 2022, so the boundary and terms of the earlier direction must be considered where relevant. The newer direction should not simply be applied retrospectively.
Planning Geek’s guidance on Article 4 and material changes of use sets out the underlying distinction. Article 4 does not itself turn every alteration in household numbers into development; it restricts specified permitted development rights where a material change otherwise takes place.
Why the certificate was not issued
A certificate under section 191 is a legal status decision. In this case the appellant’s argument was that the three-person occupation did not produce a material change of use, so no new permission was needed. The Inspector rejected that factual and legal interpretation.
The HMO lawfulness appeal also referred to other decisions, including North Devon litigation concerning a children’s care home and earlier Exeter appeal decisions. Harwood explained that those examples were not directly determinative because the physical arrangements and the pattern of use required individual assessment.
He accepted that changing from one use class to another does not invariably result in development requiring permission. The conclusion at Abbots Road rested instead on the additional household, the way existing rooms were shared, and the potential to change activity outside.
Ultimately, the Inspector considered Exeter’s refusal of a lawful development certificate well founded. The appeal was dismissed; no certificate was granted for the claimed existing Class C4 use.
What owners and planners should take from the decision
This HMO lawfulness appeal highlights a risk for landlords who focus solely on whether building works have been carried out. I would treat the established use, household make-up and relevant dates as evidence questions before assuming a licensing description settles the planning answer. The physical layout can remain much the same while a different form of occupation changes its character in planning terms.
It also cautions against treating HMO licensing thresholds, tenancy agreements and use-class labels as interchangeable answers. Licensing and planning are distinct regimes, and the correct planning answer depends on the site’s established lawful use, the facts of occupation and the rules in force when changes occurred.
Applicants seeking a certificate should be ready to explain the previous lawful use, when the alleged change took place, the composition of the households and the evidence supporting it. Where an Article 4 Direction is relevant, the exact geographic coverage and effective date deserve particular attention.
For background, Planning Geek’s Use Class C4 guide explains the planning class, while the certificate appeal guide explains how a disputed legal position is tested. This Inspector’s decision is an appeal determination, not a binding court judgment.
Appeal decision and sources
Read the official Planning Inspectorate case for appeal 3372254, decided on 28 October 2026 by Inspector Andy Harwood. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments