Milton Keynes HMO appeal fails as licensed HMO counts towards 35% threshold

A Milton Keynes HMO appeal has been dismissed after an Inspector accepted that a nearby licensed HMO could count towards the council’s concentration test even though the appellant said it had no planning permission.

The six-bedroom, six-person C4 HMO in Bradwell Common had already been operating and had held an HMO licence since 2021. But the property sits within Milton Keynes’ borough-wide Article 4 area, where planning permission is required for a change from a C3 dwellinghouse to a C4 HMO.

Inspector D Harris-Watkins dismissed appeal 6009760 on 28th September 2026. The decisive issue was not parking, refuse, fire safety or accommodation quality. It was the effect of the development on the mix and balance of the local community.

How the Milton Keynes HMO threshold works

Milton Keynes’ 2012 Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document sets out how the council assesses concentrations of HMOs. Policy HN7 of Plan:MK also seeks to prevent an over-concentration that would create an imbalance in local communities.

The SPD uses a 35% threshold within 50 metres when judging whether HMO concentration could be considered too great.

In this case, the appellant accepted that, including the appeal property, three properties within the radius were operating as HMOs. Using the SPD methodology, that pushed the concentration above the threshold.

The dispute was therefore not about whether those HMOs existed. It was about whether one of them should count.

The appellant argued that another HMO on Bradwell Common Boulevard had an HMO licence but apparently did not have planning permission. On that basis, it was said that the property should be excluded from the calculation.

Licensed HMO still formed part of the housing mix

Inspector Harris-Watkins rejected that argument.

The appeal decision records that the SPD methodology includes properties with an HMO licence. The Inspector had also been given no evidence to suggest the neighbouring property was not actually occupied as an HMO.

The key sentence was that it “does therefore form part of the current housing mix”. He concluded that it should be included in the Milton Keynes HMO calculation.

That is an important distinction. An HMO licence does not grant planning permission or establish that a use is lawful in planning terms. Planning and HMO licensing remain separate regimes.

But the concentration policy was concerned with the actual housing mix around the appeal site. On the evidence before the Inspector, the licensed property was operating as an HMO and the published methodology said it should be counted.

The decision therefore does not regularise the planning status of the neighbouring property. It simply treats the operating HMO as part of the factual baseline for this concentration assessment.

An earlier Bradwell Common appeal mattered

The Inspector also referred to an earlier 2024 appeal elsewhere on Bradwell Common Boulevard. That case dealt with a very similar argument about licensed HMOs without planning permission.

He described the earlier decision as “directly relevant”.

A Lancaster appeal put forward by the appellant did not change the result. In that case, the Inspector had found that Lancaster City Council had not adequately explained or justified its calculation.

Here, Harris-Watkins said Milton Keynes had supplied its methodology and workings. The appellant had also accepted that the surrounding HMOs were operating.

Parking, fire safety and accommodation were not the problem

Several points that often decide HMO cases went in the appellant’s favour.

Milton Keynes Council was satisfied that the use did not cause unacceptable harm in relation to parking, refuse storage or living conditions. The Inspector had not been given records of noise or disturbance complaints connected with the property.

He also found that the accommodation provided acceptable living conditions and was of a high quality, including garden space.

There were no concerns over fire safety or management of the HMO. With no external alterations, the appearance of the building was unchanged.

The Inspector also acknowledged that the Milton Keynes HMO provided shared, affordable and flexible accommodation in a sustainable location. It made efficient use of an existing building and contributed to housing supply.

Those benefits were not enough to overcome the concentration issue.

Why the Milton Keynes HMO appeal failed

The Inspector found that the development had increased the concentration of HMOs to an unreasonably high level and resulted in the loss of family housing.

In his view, that affected the balance of age groups and household types in the area. He also accepted the SPD’s concern that more transient HMO occupation and reduced tenure can diminish opportunities for community integration and cohesion.

That led to conflict with Policies HN7 and D1 of Plan:MK.

The Inspector also considered the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026, including its support for healthy, mixed, vibrant and integrated communities.

The appellant pointed to the circumstances of existing residents. Some were described as vulnerable and some had lived at the property for a number of years.

The Inspector considered their human rights and the Public Sector Equality Duty, but found insufficient evidence that suitable alternative accommodation and support would not be available.

On balance, he gave significant weight to the harm to the mix and balance of the community and dismissed the appeal.

What the decision means

The practical lesson is narrower than saying every licensed HMO must always be counted. Concentration policies differ between authorities, as do their calculation methods.

Here, Milton Keynes had a published 50-metre methodology. The appellant accepted the surrounding HMOs were operating, and the disputed property formed part of the actual housing mix.

The Milton Keynes HMO decision is therefore useful where a concentration calculation includes an HMO whose planning status is uncertain.

The first question is not simply whether that property has planning permission. It is what the relevant local policy or SPD says should be counted, and what the evidence shows is actually happening on the ground.

Planning Geek’s Use Class C4 guide explains the planning position for small HMOs. Our HMO Article 4 map tracks areas where C3 to C4 permitted development rights have been removed.

We also recently looked at a different concentration methodology in the Eastbourne HMO appeal. The Loughborough student accommodation appeal provides a useful contrast: a 40.6% local HMO concentration was relevant to purpose-built student accommodation, but did not itself trigger refusal. You can read the locally hosted decision or the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.