A Leicester HMO concentration of 15% to 20% has helped sink a seven-person sui generis HMO appeal after an Inspector decided the existing level was already significant under the city’s newly adopted Local Plan.
The decision is notable because Policy Ho11 contains neither a fixed percentage threshold nor a prescribed radius or assessment area. Instead, Inspector Elaine Moulton said significance had to be judged from the evidence in the individual case.
The appeal concerned a mid-terraced property in Hobart Street, within Stoneygate ward. It was already operating as a licensed HMO and permission was sought for six bedrooms occupied by seven people. Appeal 6007630 was dismissed on 29th September 2026.
Leicester HMO concentration had no fixed threshold
Leicester City Council had originally referred to emerging Policy Ho10 when refusing the application. By the time the appeal was decided, the Leicester Local Plan 2020 to 2036 had been adopted and the policy had become Ho11.
Ho11 says HMO proposals should not adversely affect the character of an area, should maintain a mixed and balanced community, and should not add to an existing proportion of HMOs and other non-family housing which amounts to a significant concentration.
Crucially, the policy does not say that 10%, 15%, 20% or any other figure automatically amounts to a significant concentration. Nor does it prescribe a 50 metre radius, street block or ward as the calculation area.
Moulton therefore said the question was “a matter of planning judgement based on the evidence before me”.
That differs materially from a fixed numerical test. In our recent Milton Keynes HMO appeal, the published methodology used a 35% threshold within 50 metres. There the arithmetic establishes whether the policy threshold has been crossed. Under Leicester’s Ho11, the percentage is evidence to be weighed rather than an automatic pass or fail line.
Article 4 evidence mattered even though the Direction did not trigger permission
The Hobart Street property lies within an HMO Article 4 Direction area. That Direction removes the permitted development route from a C3 dwellinghouse to a small C4 HMO of up to six people.
But this proposal was for seven people. A seven-person HMO falls outside Class C4 and, where the change is material, is sui generis. It therefore required planning permission regardless of the Article 4 Direction.
The Inspector nevertheless regarded the Direction as relevant evidence, saying it indicated that the site was in an area where HMOs had already been identified as problematic.
More importantly, Leicester’s review of its Article 4 Directions mapped the appeal site within a part of Stoneygate where between 15% and 20% of the total housing stock was HMO accommodation. The Inspector concluded that “this amounts to a significant concentration of HMOs” and that the local community had become unbalanced.
The Leicester HMO concentration figure should not be read as a new city-wide threshold created by this appeal. It was the evidential position for this location and this decision under a policy which leaves significance to planning judgement.
Cutting occupancy from ten to seven was not enough
The appellant had reduced the proposed occupation from ten people to seven. The Inspector accepted that this would lessen the level of activity generated by the property, but it did not overcome the cumulative concern.
There was limited evidence that the appeal property or nearby HMOs had generated a significant number of complaints about noise, disturbance or antisocial behaviour. Even so, the Inspector considered that HMO occupiers would generally lead more independent lifestyles than a single household, with comings and goings, visitors and everyday movements occurring at different times.
Against that existing Leicester HMO concentration, she considered the additional activity could harm the living conditions of other residents. There was no compelling evidence that reducing the occupancy to seven would be enough to remove those wider concerns.
The Inspector therefore found harm both to the balance and mix of housing and, cumulatively, to neighbouring living conditions.
Conservation area effect was neutral
Hobart Street is within the South Highfields Conservation Area, where the historic and townscape value of nineteenth-century terraced housing contributes to its significance.
That issue did not count against the scheme. There were no external alterations and the use remained residential in character, albeit more intensive. The Inspector found the effect on the conservation area to be neutral and concluded that its character and appearance would be preserved.
The proposal also had some benefits, including efficient use of an existing building, good access to public transport and services, and some local economic benefit. They were not enough to outweigh the housing-mix and cumulative amenity harm.
Why this Leicester HMO concentration decision matters
For HMO applicants and councils, the practical lesson from the Leicester HMO concentration decision is not that the city now has a 15% or 20% refusal threshold. It does not.
Where a development plan policy uses a fixed percentage and assessment area, the starting point is usually to establish the correct properties, count them under the published methodology and compare the result with that threshold.
Where the policy instead uses a judgement such as “significant concentration”, the evidence needs to do more work. The decision-maker needs a defensible assessment geography, reliable evidence of the local housing mix and an explanation of why the identified level is significant in planning terms.
Leicester’s Article 4 evidence was persuasive here because it placed the appeal property within an identified concentration band and supported the wider objective of maintaining a mixed and balanced community. But another site, another evidence base or another policy could produce a different result.
Planning Geek’s Class C4 HMO guide explains the boundary between small C4 HMOs and larger sui generis HMOs. Our HMO Article 4 map tracks areas where the C3 to C4 permitted development right has been removed, while our Article 4 policy guide looks at the evidence needed to justify those controls.
The appeal is 6007630. You can read the full Leicester HMO appeal decision in Planning Geek’s local library or view the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.
0 Comments