One extra resident has proved decisive in a Greenwich HMO appeal, despite an existing permission allowing six people to occupy the same terraced house.
Inspector B Astley-Serougi dismissed the proposed seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO at Ceres Road, Plumstead, on 30th September 2026. The main concern was noise and disturbance affecting the adjoining home, whose entrance and bay window sit directly beside the appeal property’s main access.
The Inspector accepted that the six-person permission was a genuine fallback. But the evidence did not persuade him that increasing occupation to seven would avoid an unacceptable intensification of activity, particularly alongside another property permitted as a seven-person HMO.
Why the Greenwich HMO appeal failed
Appeal 6007470 concerned James Smith’s challenge to the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s refusal of application 25/2568/F. The proposal included a rear dormer, rooflights, and cycle and refuse storage alongside the change of use to a seven-person sui generis HMO.
The application description referred to a change from a single-family dwellinghouse in Class C3. However, the two-storey mid-terraced property already benefited from an extant permission, reference 25/0619/F, for a six-bedroom, six-person HMO with a rear dormer loft conversion.
That distinction matters. The Greenwich HMO appeal was assessed against a credible six-person alternative, rather than simply comparing seven separate occupiers with an ordinary family home. The decision does not establish that the six-person permission had already been implemented.
The site’s physical arrangement was central. Its main access lies immediately beside the entrance and bay window of the adjoining house identified as No 42 in the decision.
He considered that residents living as separate households would generate more comings and goings than a single-family dwelling. He then expressly considered the smaller HMO permission and the marginal increase proposed.
There was, he found, limited substantive evidence adequately demonstrating that the seven-person scheme would avoid a harmful increase in noise and disturbance. Paragraph 6 concludes that it would likely “unacceptably intensify the coming and goings above that of a six-person HMO”.
A genuine six-person fallback was not enough
The Inspector did not dismiss the fallback as speculative. In paragraph 8, he described the extant permission as having “a greater than theoretical possibility of being implemented”.
That gave the appellant a real alternative to put into the planning balance. Even so, the Inspector found greater harm from the additional proposed occupant when comparing the appeal scheme with that fallback.
A further feature of the Greenwich HMO appeal was the nearby property at No 46. This benefited from permission 25/0767/F for a seven-person HMO. The Inspector acknowledged that the appeal proposal would not create two adjoining HMOs for the first time.
He also recognised that the two existing permissions, taken together, would allow 13 occupants across the appeal property and No 46. Nevertheless, he considered that the neighbouring HMO would further exacerbate the noise and disturbance associated with the appeal proposal.
His conclusion was that the fallback did not justify the larger scheme. The reasoning therefore turned on the assessed additional harm, rather than a finding that the smaller permission was unavailable or unlikely to be used.
Sound insulation could not address activity outside
Additional sound insulation between the appeal property and No 42 was considered as a possible condition. The Inspector was not satisfied that it would adequately address the identified harm.
The difficulty was external noise and disturbance, particularly given the position of the two entrances. Improving the party wall would not, in his assessment, resolve activity outside the building beside the neighbouring access and bay window.
This is the distinction between treating noise transmitted through a building and addressing how a proposed use affects the space immediately around it. The Greenwich HMO appeal failed on the latter concern as well as the anticipated intensity of occupation.
Conditions limiting occupation, requiring an HMO management plan and securing the provision and retention of refuse and cycle storage were also considered. Paragraph 10 states that these “would not overcome the harm I have identified above regarding noise and disturbance”.
The decision does not set out a detailed management plan or a particular reduced occupancy figure which the Inspector rejected. It would therefore go too far to claim that management plans are generally ineffective, or that every possible occupancy condition was tested.
For this scheme, he was not persuaded that the suggested controls would deal with the harm he had identified. Our guide to noise in planning applications explains the wider planning context.
Other HMOs did not establish an acceptable comparison
The evidence submitted in the Greenwich HMO appeal referred to decisions at Saunders Road, reference 6005200, and Montbelle Road, reference 6000373.
The Inspector said he did not have their full circumstances and could not be certain they were wholly comparable. He specifically noted that a noise impact assessment had been submitted in the Saunders Road case.
Other HMOs on Ceres Road were also acknowledged. Their existence did not justify a proposal which he had found harmful, because each application had to be determined on its own merits.
The Greenwich HMO appeal was not dismissed for exceeding a numerical HMO concentration threshold. The presence of the nearby seven-person HMO formed part of the assessment of noise and disturbance in this particular setting.
No identified harm on housing, design or parking
The Greenwich HMO appeal decision records no harm concerning accommodation standards, loss of a family dwelling, design, parking, highway safety, refuse or cycle storage. The council had not raised these matters as reasons for refusal.
However, the Inspector treated their acceptability as neutral. Passing those assessments did not outweigh the harm to the adjoining occupiers’ living conditions.
This also means the Greenwich HMO appeal should not be described as failing because seven residents would have inadequate rooms or create unacceptable parking pressure. Neither was the reason for dismissal. Our HMO bedroom standards guidance covers the separate accommodation issue.
The Inspector found conflict with London Plan policies D3 and D14 and Greenwich Local Plan policy E(a), insofar as they protect amenity and address adverse noise impacts. He also found the proposal contrary to the council’s Urban Design Guide SPD 2023 for the same reasons.
Seven occupiers change the use class, not the answer
Use Class C4 covers qualifying HMOs occupied by no more than six residents. A seven-person HMO falls outside that class into sui generis use. That classification does not, by itself, establish unacceptable planning harm.
The practical lesson from the Greenwich HMO appeal is narrower: an applicant relying on a six-person fallback still needs to address the actual consequences of the extra occupation. Here, the entrance arrangement, external activity, neighbouring HMO and evidence before the Inspector supported dismissal.
For a similar proposal, the useful question is what changes on the ground between the permitted and proposed schemes, and whether the evidence and proposed controls address those changes. Simply describing the difference as one person did not resolve that question in this case.
Read the full appeal decision for Ceres Road, or see the Planning Inspectorate’s appeal record. Our planning appeals guide explains the process.
0 Comments