A Liverpool HMO appeal has been dismissed after the owner failed to prove that 30 Balmoral Road had been used continuously as a large, seven-person HMO for the full ten-year enforcement immunity period.
The decision is a useful warning about lawful development certificates. HMO licences, sales particulars and a present-day seven-bedroom layout may all help, but they do not necessarily prove when a material change of use happened or that at least seven people occupied the property throughout the required period.
What the Liverpool HMO appeal was trying to prove
The appeal concerned 30 Balmoral Road, Fairfield, Liverpool. GAC Estates Ltd had applied under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a certificate confirming the existing use as a large House in Multiple Occupation, which is a sui generis use.
The application and appeal used several descriptions, including a seven-room HMO, seven-bed HMO and large HMO. Inspector M Savage treated the case as a claim that the property had been occupied by at least seven people.
Because this was an existing-use lawful development certificate, planning merits were irrelevant. The question was whether the appellant had proved the facts and law on the balance of probabilities. Our main guide to a Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use or development explains that evidential test.
The ten-year period had to be proved from start to finish
The Inspector applied the ten-year period under section 171B of the 1990 Act. To succeed, the evidence had to show that the material change to a large HMO occurred on or before 14th July 2015 and then continued without significant interruption for at least ten years.
The decision also referred to Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] 47 P&CR 157. Residential use can, depending on the facts, begin before ordinary occupation starts. That did not solve the problem here because the evidence still had to establish when this particular material change occurred and whether the use then continued.
Planning Geek’s guide to planning enforcement time limits explains the wider immunity rules.
Two different commencement dates weakened the case
The application form said the use began on 13th March 2014. The appeal statement instead said records indicated a large HMO had existed since at least 2011.
Both dates were early enough in principle, but the contradiction mattered. The Inspector said it introduced ambiguity and reduced confidence in the accuracy of the account. A lawful use based on the passage of time had to be affirmatively established.
HMO licensing did not prove seven people actually lived there
The Council’s information showed an HMO licence had first been granted on 28th December 2011. It held licensing information for nine persons over the period 2011 to 2024 and for seven persons between 6th April 2023 and 5th April 2024.
That was not enough. The Inspector distinguished between a property being considered suitable or licensed for a number of occupants and evidence that the property was actually occupied by that number. The licensing history pointed towards an intention to use the house as a large HMO, but did not prove actual large-HMO occupation throughout the immunity period.
This distinction is important because a small C4 HMO and a larger sui generis HMO are not the same planning use.
The 2016 sale details pointed in different directions
Several property adverts were produced. One described No 30 as a seven-bedroom HMO investment opportunity. Another marketed Nos 30 and 32 together as a 16-bedroom HMO that was part let.
But a December 2016 auction advert for the pair described a 15-bed HMO opportunity while its detailed accommodation for No 30 identified only six letting rooms. Liverpool argued that this suggested No 30 was operating as a C4 HMO in late 2016.
The appellant’s agent suggested the advert might simply be wrong. The Inspector did not treat the marketing material as decisive either way, but its inconsistency added to the evidential problem.
Tenancy documents contained gaps and contradictions
Tenancy information in auction special conditions identified flats 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, with agreements said to run from November 2020 onwards. The documents did not establish occupation before November 2020.
There were also specific problems with the paperwork. The material for Room 8 did not match the tenant, date and term shown in the special conditions. The agreement for Flat 7 had a handwritten change from 32 Balmoral Road to 30 Balmoral Road and gave an end date earlier than its commencement date.
The Inspector accepted that mistakes and corrections can be innocent, but found that they undermined confidence in the documentation.
Renovation and vacancy created an unanswered continuity question
GAC Estates bought the property in 2023 after it had been found in a major state of disrepair. The evidence said it remained tenanted during investigations, but the most recent tenants were later rehoused so major renovation and remedial works could take place.
The difficulty was not that every period of works or every tenant change automatically breaks continuity. The Inspector expressly treated that as a question of fact and degree. The problem was that the evidence did not make clear when the tenants moved out, when the works occurred or what the effect was on the claimed large-HMO use.
Other evidence did not fill the missing years
EPCs from April 2014 showed that the property had been subdivided into a number of flats or rooms, but did not prove occupation. Floor plans showed seven bedrooms at a later stage, yet the internal layout appeared to have changed over time.
The electoral register recorded only one resident in March 2021. The Inspector acknowledged that the register was only a snapshot, but there was no first-hand evidence of occupation for that period beyond the limited tenancy material.
A local resident also supplied a document headed as a sworn declaration saying Nos 30 and 32 had been large HMOs for more than ten years with uninterrupted tenancies. It received very limited weight because it did not appear to have been sworn on oath and did not explain what the resident understood by a large HMO or how they knew how many people were occupying No 30.
Why the certificate appeal failed
The Inspector concluded that the evidence was limited, contradictory and insufficiently precise. It did not prove on the balance of probabilities that No 30 changed to a large sui generis HMO on or before 14th July 2015 and then remained in that use without significant interruption for the next ten years.
The appeal, reference APP/Z4310/X/25/3374566, was therefore dismissed on 3rd September 2026. Liverpool’s refusal of the lawful development certificate was upheld.
If a council refuses an LDC, our guide to a lawful development certificate appeal explains the section 195 route.
The practical lesson for HMO evidence
For owners and consultants, the safest approach is to build a year-by-year chronology before the application is submitted. The evidence should identify the date of the material change, the actual number of occupiers, the layout at the time and any gaps caused by works, voids or tenant changeovers.
- Do not assume an HMO licence proves the number of people who actually occupied the property
- Check marketing particulars against the detailed room schedule rather than relying on the headline description
- Reconcile tenancy names, addresses and dates before lodging the evidence
- Explain renovation periods and voids instead of leaving the decision-maker to guess what happened
- Use first-hand statements which explain precisely what the witness saw, knew and when
For purchasers, the case is an especially useful due-diligence warning. Buying a property marketed as a seven-bed HMO does not transfer a ready-made ten-year evidential case. Planning Geek’s guide to buying an HMO in an Article 4 area explains the wider checks, while our HMO Article 4 map helps identify areas where the separate C3 to C4 permitted development right has been removed.
For councils, the decision is a reminder to test whether the evidence establishes the actual planning use through the whole immunity period. Licensing, EPCs and sale particulars may be useful pieces of the picture, but their evidential purpose is not the same as proving continuous occupation by seven or more people.
Read the appeal decision
Planning Geek hosts the full appeal decision for APP/Z4310/X/25/3374566 in our own library.
Published: 4th September 2026
0 Comments