Three of four Liverpool HMO appeals decided on 9 November 2026 have resulted in lawful development certificates, while a fourth failed despite evidence of a decade of shared-house occupation. All four decisions were issued by Inspector D A Hainsworth.
The cases concern houses on Leopold Road, Adelaide Road, Picton Road and Borrowdale Road. Liverpool City Council disputed the lawfulness of the claimed uses, but the Inspector drew important distinctions between an established small house in multiple occupation (HMO), later breaks in occupation and a seven-person HMO relying on the passage of time.
The Liverpool HMO appeals are particularly useful for owners and purchasers in Article 4 areas. They show why a planning authority should not demand unbroken occupation of an established lawful use without examining whether that lawful right has actually been lost. They also show why an applicant cannot ignore a genuine evidential gap.
Why the Liverpool HMO appeals produced different results
Three appeals involved existing small HMOs in Use Class C4, normally covering occupation by three to six unrelated people who share basic amenities. In the areas concerned, Liverpool’s Article 4 Direction took effect on 17 June 2021 and withdrew the usual permitted development right under Class L of Part 3 of the 2015 General Permitted Development Order to change a dwellinghouse from Class C3 to C4 without a planning application.
The applicants were not seeking fresh planning permission for new HMO conversions. They were asking for certificates under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 confirming that specified uses were lawful on their application dates. In appeals under section 195, the Inspector had to determine whether Liverpool’s refusals were well founded. Planning merits, such as whether another HMO would be desirable, did not decide that question.
The fourth case concerned a seven-person sui generis HMO. It relied on a separate route to lawfulness: proving a sufficiently long period of unauthorised use for the enforcement time limit to expire. Those contrasting routes explain much of the different outcome.
Leopold Road: speculation did not disprove established C4 use
At Leopold Road, the appellant supplied council tax records showing student-household exemption extending from 2001 to 2025, accounts from previous owners, tenancy agreements and a layout consistent with HMO occupation. Liverpool accepted evidence that the property was in C4 use when the relevant Article 4 Direction came into force, but argued there was a six-month gap in the later documentary record before the December 2025 application.
The Council suggested the building could have returned to single-family use during that interval. The Inspector found no evidence that anything had happened to extinguish the existing lawful C4 use. The Inspector described the supposed reversion as conjecture unsupported by any evidence
. The possibility of a change was not, on its own, enough to make the appellant’s account less than probable.
The Liverpool HMO appeals therefore illustrate a crucial evidential distinction: a break in tenancy documents is not necessarily proof that a lawful planning use has ended. The Inspector allowed appeal APP/Z4310/X/26/3378000 and issued a certificate confirming C4 use on 3 December 2025.
Adelaide Road: additional documents overcame refusal
The Adelaide Road appeal followed an application claiming longstanding small HMO use before the 2021 restriction. The original submission contained tenancy agreements and an explanation of the occupation, but the council was not satisfied that the evidence established the claimed use over the relevant period.
On appeal, the applicant supplied further financial material, legal documents, photographs, invoices, plans and a statutory declaration. Having examined those additional records, Liverpool decided not to contest the case. The Inspector had no reason to question that revised position and allowed appeal APP/Z4310/X/26/3377978, issuing a certificate confirming C4 use on 18 September 2025.
This is a reminder that stronger evidence can change the result of a certificate appeal. The decision does not establish that a tenancy agreement alone will always be sufficient. It shows the value of a coherent set of documents capable of addressing the council’s actual concerns.
There was also a separate costs decision. Liverpool sought its full appeal costs from the successful appellant, arguing that the extra documents ought to have been supplied earlier. Inspector Hainsworth refused the council’s application. The Inspector found no demonstrated unreasonable behaviour or unnecessary expense, and noted that the council had not followed the certificate appeals procedural guide’s best practice of discussing evidential concerns and offering an opportunity to provide further material before refusing the application. That is an important procedural point for both applicants and authorities.
Picton Road: temporary non-use and asylum accommodation
The Picton Road application raised two different concerns. The council questioned a break in occupation while the house changed ownership and was refurbished. It also queried whether the property’s accommodation for asylum seekers represented C4 HMO use or some different, potentially sui generis or hostel-type activity.
The Inspector accepted the explanation for the short refurbishment gap: no other use had intervened. On the accommodation point, the applicant described the property as providing dispersed accommodation, with stays varying according to the course of an individual’s asylum claim. Liverpool questioned the assertion but offered no contrary evidence capable of making it less than probable on the balance of probability.
The Liverpool HMO appeals should not be read as saying that all accommodation for asylum seekers falls within C4. The Inspector’s finding concerned the actual asserted dispersed accommodation and evidence in this case. The Inspector allowed appeal APP/Z4310/X/26/3377472 and granted a certificate confirming use as a C4 HMO on 20 June 2025.
Borrowdale Road: ten years established, later use unproved
Borrowdale Road offers the sharpest contrast. The appellant sought a certificate for a seven-bed sui generis HMO and produced council tax records, declarations from managing agents, licences and other documents. The Inspector considered that the evidence proved use by up to seven residents from 1 July 2013, continuing uninterrupted for ten years until 1 July 2023.
That did not end the enquiry. The certificate application was made on 25 April 2025. Records showed that the property was empty in October 2023 and management records stopped at that point. Other evidence did not adequately explain what happened between the acquisition of lawfulness in July 2023 and the certificate application.
The Inspector therefore accepted that the use had acquired immunity through ten years’ continuation, but was not satisfied that the applicant had explained whether the lawful use right had subsequently been lost. The Liverpool HMO appeals show how those two questions must be considered separately. Appeal APP/Z4310/X/26/3377775 was dismissed.
That dismissal is not a finding that every period of vacancy destroys an HMO use. It reflects the applicant’s burden to provide sufficiently clear evidence where specific records indicate an empty property and the later history is inadequately addressed.
What HMO owners should take from the decisions
Evidence should be organised around the actual legal route being claimed. Where an HMO was lawfully established before an Article 4 restriction, the relevant questions include when the C4 use began and whether anything afterwards brought that right to an end. For an unauthorised seven-person HMO, it may be necessary to demonstrate the completed enforcement period and then explain any subsequent change of circumstances.
Planning Geek’s guide to buying an HMO in an Article 4 area explains the due diligence risks. Our lawful development certificate appeals guidance covers evidence and procedure, while the HMO planning guide explains the distinction between smaller C4 and larger sui generis houses.
These Liverpool HMO appeals also sit alongside an earlier October decision involving Liverpool HMO lawfulness. None removes the need to identify the precise property, relevant Direction, claimed use, certificate date and any event that might have changed the planning unit or its lawful use.
All four decisions were issued on 9 November 2026. The decisions are also available on AppealBase: Leopold Road, Adelaide Road, Picton Road and Borrowdale Road.
0 Comments