A Kenmare HMO has won a lawful development certificate on appeal after an Inspector accepted evidence that the Liverpool property was already in shared occupation before local planning restrictions began. John Whalley allowed appeal APP/Z4310/X/26/3377377 on 15th October 2026.
The decision concerns a two-storey terraced house on Kenmare Road in Wavertree and certifies its use as a small HMO for three to six people. Liverpool City Council had refused the application because it was not satisfied by the evidence of use before the area’s Article 4 Direction took effect.
I would focus on the evidence rather than treat this as permission for another shared house. The Kenmare HMO appeal established the lawfulness of an existing use. It did not approve a new conversion, lift Liverpool’s planning restrictions or decide whether every student-occupied property falls within the same use class.
Why the Kenmare HMO appeal succeeded
The original decision and certificate identify council application 25LE/2517. The certificate states that the three-to-six-person shared use was lawful on 15th July 2025, the application date, and describes the particular property and use it covers.
A lawful development certificate answers a legal question about the use or development described. It is different from a planning application asking a council to weigh a new proposal’s benefits against its effects on neighbours and the wider area.
Here the relevant distinction was between an ordinary dwellinghouse, in Class C3, and a small shared house in Class C4. The latter covers the type of HMO addressed by this appeal. The number of residents and the nature of their occupation both matter; the label attached to a tenancy is not the whole test.
The council’s Article 4 Direction for the Dales area of Greenbank ward, including Kenmare Road, took effect on 19th July 2018. It removed the permitted development route for changing an ordinary house to a small HMO in that area.
The Kenmare HMO therefore needed evidence that its shared use was already lawful before that restriction and had not subsequently been replaced by an ordinary dwellinghouse use. The Inspector accepted that case on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof used here.
What the council’s records showed
An email from Liverpool’s council tax team confirmed that the property was exempt from council tax and occupied by students from 1st September 2014. This placed student occupation well before the Article 4 Direction’s commencement.
There was a gap in tenancy documents for that earlier period. The decision records a full set of tenancy agreements dating from July 2020 onwards, but those did not themselves establish occupation before July 2018. The council tax evidence therefore had particular importance.
The council’s housing team also confirmed selective licences for up to three people covering periods beginning in November 2016 and June 2024. The council argued that having a licence did not demonstrate actual occupation. Its council tax email also did not specify the number of students present.
Those limitations were considered in the Kenmare HMO decision rather than ignored. The Inspector nevertheless found sufficient evidence overall that the house had been used as a small HMO by the critical date. There was no suggestion that it had accommodated more than six people before or after the Direction took effect.
The standard was probability, not absolute certainty
The council’s refusal had said the evidence did not adequately and irrefutably demonstrate the required history. The Inspector applied the balance of probabilities instead, considering whether the account was sufficiently precise and unambiguous and whether contrary evidence made it less probable.
The decision refers to government advice on existing-use applications where a council has no evidence contradicting a sufficiently clear applicant’s account. That does not remove the applicant’s burden of proof. It means the evidence is assessed against the proper legal standard, rather than an expectation of absolute certainty.
For the Kenmare HMO, the Inspector found “adequate evidence” of the relevant historic use. There was also no evidence that the property had reverted to an ordinary single-family dwellinghouse after July 2018. The decision concluded that no superseding use had occurred before the application date.
I would avoid turning this into a rule that council tax exemption always proves an HMO. The Inspector assessed the records, tenancy history, licensing information and absence of contrary evidence together. A different occupancy history or conflicting documents could produce a different result.
What the certificate covers
The attached certificate is specific: use of the property as an HMO for three to six people. It does not certify a larger shared house, every possible building alteration or a separate licensing entitlement. Its notes warn that materially different development or other land may fall outside its scope.
The Kenmare HMO appeal is particularly useful for owners whose evidence predates an Article 4 Direction but whose oldest tenancy agreements are missing. Council records can be relevant, but they still need to support the actual use being claimed and fit a coherent chronology.
For neighbours and purchasers, the certificate and its plan are the starting documents. Check the certified date, the resident limit and the precise premises. The fact that a certificate is issued in October 2026 does not mean the shared use began at that time.
A local evidence decision with a wider lesson
The appeal overturns Liverpool’s refusal for this property. It leaves the area’s Article 4 controls in place for new changes of use. Our Liverpool HMO Article 4 report provides separate coverage of the city’s more recent direction proposals and stages.
I would assemble a dated occupancy history before relying on this decision elsewhere. Identify what each record proves, where it is silent and whether later events changed the use. That is the practical lesson from the successful appeal, rather than an assumption that student occupation alone settles every planning question.
0 Comments