Hull student accommodation appeal exposes HMO licensing divide

A 37-bedroom Hull student accommodation appeal has exposed an important line between planning use and HMO licensing after an Inspector found the proposed scheme was more likely than not to satisfy Housing Act tests for a house in multiple occupation.

Inspector A Hunter nevertheless made clear that being licensable as an HMO did not automatically settle the accommodation’s planning use as purpose-built student accommodation. The council also failed to prove that its adopted 50% HMO concentration threshold would be breached because it had not carried out the calculation across the whole street required by its own policy.

The appeal, 6010376, concerned the former Hull Grammar School and Community Centre on Cottingham Road. It was dismissed on 1st October 2026, but ultimately because of the design of the proposed extensions and dormers rather than HMO concentration, privacy or the principle of student accommodation.

A student scheme that could still be an HMO

The Hull student accommodation proposal by Humber Estates Ltd was for the change of use, first and second-floor extensions and external alterations to the former grammar school building to create 37 student bedrooms. A separate former stores building would provide a landlord’s office and store, with parking and landscaping also proposed.

The planning-use question was unusually important. The Inspector said there is no use class within the Use Classes Order that directly applies to student accommodation, often described as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA, and treated the proposed use as sui generis.

In the Hull student accommodation case, the council argued that the internal arrangement looked much like a large HMO. The rooms were individual en-suite study bedrooms with shared kitchen and laundry facilities across three floors. Although there were separate entrances, the accommodation was internally connected rather than divided into smaller flats or self-contained units.

That took the appeal into the Housing Act 2004 section 254 tests. The Inspector considered both the standard test and the converted building test. He also looked at Schedule 14, which excludes certain student accommodation from the Housing Act HMO definition where it is managed or controlled by an educational establishment.

That exclusion did not help here. It was accepted that the development would not be managed or controlled by an educational establishment.

Hull’s Environmental Health team said an HMO licence would be required. With no persuasive evidence to the contrary, Hunter considered it more likely than not that the scheme would meet both relevant section 254 tests and would therefore be licensable as an HMO.

But he then drew the distinction which makes this appeal particularly useful for practitioners:

“whether it is licensable as an HMO is not necessarily binding in terms of its planning use as PBSA”

In other words, housing legislation and planning control were both relevant, but they were answering different legal questions. This should not be read as meaning that every PBSA scheme is an HMO, or that every licensable HMO must be treated as the same planning use.

Hull student accommodation appeal: why 52.9% did not breach Policy 7

The distinction mattered because Hull Local Plan Policy 7 controls HMO concentrations in Article 4 areas. It says that where the concentration of HMOs and flats exceeds 50% in a specific street, further HMOs will not be allowed, subject to the University Quarter exception.

The appeal site sits within an HMO Article 4 area. The council therefore produced concentration calculations for parts of the designation. Depending on the area used and whether properties within the University Quarter were included, the concentration remained below 43% even with the proposal.

The council also used a much smaller section of Cottingham Road between Falmouth Street and Scholars Drive. Across just 17 properties, it calculated a concentration of about 47% before the development and 52.9% with the proposed student accommodation included.

That looked capable of taking the scheme over the policy threshold, but there was a basic problem. Policy 7 referred to the entire street.

Cottingham Road was said to be around 1.5 miles long. The council had produced no whole-street calculation demonstrating that the 50% threshold would be exceeded. Hunter found that the policy contained no distinction between long and short streets and no mechanism allowing selected parts of a street to be excluded simply because a smaller area might give a different percentage.

He therefore found no conflict with the 50% element of Policy 7 and no substantive evidence that the proposal would unbalance the community or create an unacceptable over-concentration of similar uses.

The council also relied on its 2022 HMO supplementary planning document. That guidance says the 50% threshold is too high and indicates that a lower figure is intended through the new local plan. The Inspector gave the SPD limited weight where its requirements went beyond the adopted Policy 7. It is a useful reminder that supplementary guidance can explain policy, but it cannot quietly rewrite the development plan test being applied on appeal.

Outside the University Quarter did not mean automatic refusal

For the Hull student accommodation appeal, the site was outside Hull’s designated University Quarter, although close to it. The adopted local plan supports student accommodation within the quarter and the upgrading of accommodation in adjoining areas, but the Inspector did not read that as an outright ban on new student accommodation elsewhere.

He also rejected the council’s privacy case. The closest proposed windows on the western side would be at least 23.8 metres from the rear elevations of nearby homes on Scholars Drive. Taking account of levels, existing urban relationships and the position of the dormers, Hunter found no unacceptable privacy effect.

Noise and disturbance were also capable of being addressed through a management plan. That could cover staffing, visitors, quiet hours, complaints, refuse and use of external areas. Subject to student-only occupation and management controls, the Inspector was not persuaded that 37 bedrooms alongside existing HMOs and flats would cause unacceptable noise or harm the local mix.

That finding is significant because the appeal did not treat the Article 4 designation itself as evidence of harm. The actual wording and methodology of the adopted policy still had to be satisfied.

The former school use lost locally, but the new NPPF changed the weight

The lawful baseline for the Hull student accommodation site was another contested issue. The appellant argued that the premises had been used for non-community purposes for many years, but the Inspector found insufficient evidence of a continuous uninterrupted alternative use and no certificate of lawfulness or express planning permission establishing a change.

He therefore assessed the buildings on the basis of their former school use, now falling within Use Class F1(a) for the provision of education.

Hull Local Plan Policy 13 treats schools as social and community facilities. The Inspector found the appellant had not adequately demonstrated that the site was no longer needed for community use, unsuitable for alternatives, properly replaced or covered by sufficient nearby provision. There was therefore conflict with the adopted local policy.

The result changed once the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026 was brought into the balance.

NPPF Policy HC6 uses a different concept of key community facilities, while the Framework glossary definition relied upon by the Inspector did not include schools. Hunter concluded that Hull Policy 13 was materially inconsistent with the current national decision-making policy in this particular respect and should carry very limited weight.

He therefore found that the local-policy conflict over the loss of the school use was outweighed by the newer Framework position.

That is a fact-specific policy-weight conclusion, not a universal rule that former schools can always be lost without objection. Other development plans, site circumstances and national policies concerning education and public services may point differently.

Design, not HMO concentration, sank the appeal

The Hull student accommodation appeal still failed after the appellant won much of the argument over concentration, community balance, privacy and the weight to give the former school use.

The decisive problem was design.

Hunter found that the proposed first-floor extension would increase the scale and mass of an already unsympathetic flat-roofed addition, producing an even more conspicuous form and a jarring relationship with the adjoining church. He also considered the additions would upset the building’s existing symmetry and produce a top-heavy appearance.

The second-floor dormers did not fare any better. Those on the southern roof slope were off-centre and considered incongruous, while the flat-roofed central dormer on the western side sat uncomfortably between hipped dormers.

The result was conflict with Hull Local Plan Policy 14 and the new NPPF Policy DP3 requirement for development to respond to its context and integrate with and enhance its surroundings.

There were benefits. Hull’s 2025 evidence showed only a 3.16-year housing supply. The scheme would reuse underused buildings, improve energy efficiency, provide sustainable drainage and make use of existing floorspace and airspace. Current NPPF Policies L2 and L3 support effective and efficient use of land and buildings, while the Framework gives weight to energy and flood-resilience benefits.

But the student-accommodation benefit itself was weakened by the evidence on need. The Inspector said there was no demonstrated need for PBSA at this location outside the University Quarter. He also recorded that the University had said the proposed accommodation was not required and that there was already sufficient student accommodation for current and projected student numbers.

That meant only modest weight was given to the 37 rooms rather than the greater support available under NPPF Policies HO7 and HO9 where an evidenced accommodation need is being met.

Under the new Policy DP3, the design conflict was particularly important because the Framework says development should be refused where the relevant design requirements are not met without clear justification. The Inspector also applied Policy S3’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and Policy S4’s principle that development within settlements should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. Even so, he found the benefits were not enough to overcome the national design conflict and the harm to the character and appearance of the building and immediate area.

What appeal 6010376 means for practitioners

The Hull student accommodation appeal is a useful warning against collapsing several different regulatory questions into one.

An HMO licence can be required because accommodation satisfies the Housing Act 2004 tests without that fact automatically determining its planning-use classification. Equally, calling a proposal PBSA does not take it outside HMO licensing if the statutory housing tests are actually met.

For concentration policies, the adopted wording matters just as much as the headline percentage. Here, a 52.9% figure was not enough because it came from a smaller selected area when Policy 7 required the entire street to be assessed.

The appeal also shows why Article 4 Directions should not be treated as a substitute for the development plan test. They remove permitted development rights, but the merits of an application or appeal still need to be judged against the relevant policy wording and evidence.

Finally, winning the use, concentration and amenity arguments does not guarantee permission. The proposal was dismissed because its physical alterations failed the design test. A potentially acceptable use can still be defeated by an unacceptable scheme.

Planning Geek’s Use Class C4 guide explains the planning position for small HMOs, while our HMO Article 4 map tracks areas where C3 to C4 permitted development rights have been removed. We recently looked at a different student-accommodation concentration test in the Loughborough student accommodation appeal.

You can also read our planning appeals guide, the locally hosted appeal decision, or view the Planning Inspectorate appeal record for 6010376.