Loughborough student accommodation wins appeal despite 40.6% HMO concentration

Loughborough student accommodation has won planning permission on appeal despite evidence that 40.6% of properties within 100 metres of the site were already HMOs.

Inspector Elaine Moulton accepted that houses in multiple occupation could count as “other similar uses” when considering the cumulative impact of purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA). But she did not turn Charnwood’s 10% HMO benchmark into a separate refusal threshold for PBSA.

The appeal, 6006703, was allowed on 28th September 2026. The proposal is for two-storey student accommodation containing 38 bedrooms in seven cluster flats on former rear gardens off Frederick Street and Arthur Street.

40.6% of nearby properties were HMOs

The site is vacant land which previously formed parts of rear gardens. It sits in a predominantly residential area within the Loughborough Urban Centre, close to terraced housing and the Queen’s Park Conservation Area.

Charnwood’s Plans Committee refused the application in December 2025 because of concern about the social characteristics of an area already containing a high number of HMOs and further student accommodation.

By the time of the appeal, the Inspector’s decision recorded undisputed evidence that 40.6% of the 106 properties within 100 metres were HMOs. That is equivalent to about 43 properties and is more than four times the council’s 10% HMO benchmark.

The decision says the figure had fallen slightly since the application was determined. It does not identify the underlying database used to produce the updated count, so it would be wrong to present it as a fresh council survey. What is clear is that neither main party disputed the figures put before the Inspector.

The Local Plan also refers to Charnwood’s 2018 HMO study, which found a high proportion of HMOs in Southfield ward were occupied by students. The Inspector noted, however, that the current proportion of HMOs near the appeal site actually occupied by students was unknown.

HMO policy mattered, but it did not control the PBSA decision

For the Loughborough student accommodation appeal, the distinction between Policies H7 and H8 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 became central.

Policy H7 is the council’s HMO policy. In Loughborough it supports proposals where the concentration of HMOs is below 10% within 100 metres, or where a proposal would not otherwise create an over-concentration once local geographical factors are considered. It also addresses sandwiching, noise, parking and harm to social and physical character.

Policy H8 deals with campus and PBSA. It contains no percentage threshold. Instead, off-campus PBSA must avoid damage to local social and physical character and amenity, taking account of the cumulative effects of the scheme and “other similar uses”.

Moulton found that HMOs and PBSA were “sufficiently comparable in character and function” to fall within that wording. Both generally involve individual rooms with shared facilities, even though PBSA may have dedicated management and HMOs are not exclusively student occupied.

That meant the surrounding HMOs were relevant to the cumulative assessment. It did not mean Policy H7 directly applied to this Loughborough student accommodation scheme.

The Inspector said the 100-metre radius was a useful benchmark. With a 40.6% HMO concentration, she accepted that the development would add more shared accommodation to an already imbalanced local community. The nearest existing or permitted PBSA was around 200 metres away.

Why Loughborough student accommodation survived the HMO concentration

The council still had to demonstrate unacceptable harm under Policy H8. On the evidence before her, the Inspector found that step had not been made.

She found no compelling evidence that the 38-bedroom scheme would materially worsen harm to local social characteristics associated with a more transient and less stable population.

Management was important. A Residence Management Plan and Waste Management Plan could be secured by condition. The approved management commitments include an on-site residence manager during office hours from Monday to Friday, 24-hour CCTV, key-card security, controlled moving-in and moving-out slots and private refuse collection from Frederick Street.

The waste arrangements also place responsibility on the residence manager for cleaning and maintaining the bin store. Separate conditions cover parking management, cycle storage and access, including a tenancy clause prohibiting student car use and parking permit applications.

Against that package, Moulton concluded it “has not been demonstrated” that the development would damage the social and physical character and appearance of the area.

Other objections, including crime and antisocial behaviour, parking, congestion, neighbouring living conditions, surface water and bin storage, did not provide a separate reason for refusal on the evidence available.

Housing supply and economic benefits added weight

The Loughborough student accommodation location also counted in the appellant’s favour. The site has good access to public transport and is within walking and cycling distance of Loughborough University, Loughborough College and town-centre services.

Charnwood could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Because student accommodation forms part of its housing land supply calculation, the Inspector gave the scheme a “modest but positive contribution” towards addressing the shortfall.

Economic benefits from construction and occupation were also common ground, although the parties disagreed about their scale. The Inspector gave those benefits moderate weight.

A unilateral undertaking secured £15,200 for local health premises, £5,206 towards town-centre parks and amenity open space, and £15,086 towards recreational facilities for young people. Those contributions were treated as necessary mitigation rather than a reason to overlook harm.

The development was also found to preserve the setting of the Queen’s Park Conservation Area and the Grade II listed Carillon Tower. Conditions control materials, landscaping, drainage, biodiversity, CCTV, waste, parking and student-only occupation.

What the Loughborough student accommodation decision actually says

The Loughborough student accommodation appeal is useful because it sits between two related but different policies.

Charnwood’s 10% figure remains a policy benchmark for HMOs under H7. It was relevant context when the Inspector assessed cumulative effects under H8 because the surrounding HMOs were capable of being treated as similar shared accommodation.

But H8 contains no equivalent numerical ceiling for PBSA. A concentration above the HMO benchmark therefore did not, by itself, decide the appeal. The question was whether the proposed PBSA, taking the existing concentration into account, would cause the harm H8 is designed to prevent.

That is also why this should not be read as undermining HMO concentration policies generally. Different councils use different methodologies, and the wording of the relevant development plan remains critical.

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 concentration test in the Milton Keynes HMO appeal, and at PBSA policy in the Manchester student accommodation proposals.

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