Park Royal HMO pair lose appeals over family homes and noise risk

Two retrospective six-person Park Royal HMOs in the same terrace have lost their appeals after an Inspector found that the pair would harm the local housing mix and increase the risk of noise and disturbance. The Park Royal HMO appeals, references 6013035 and 6013036, concerned two houses on Newark Crescent, within the Wesley Avenue estate.

Both properties had already been converted from Class C3 family houses to Class C4 HMOs before permission was secured. Inspector J D Westbrook dismissed both appeals on 1st October 2026.

The decision is particularly useful because it explains what an Article 4 Direction does, and just as importantly what it does not do, when an authority is deciding whether a C3 to C4 conversion should be allowed.

Two Park Royal HMO appeals considered together

The two Park Royal HMO appeals involved materially similar schemes by the same appellant. The appeal properties on Newark Crescent are mid-terraced houses within the Wesley Avenue estate, around 500 metres south west of Harlesden Station. Each had been changed from a dwellinghouse to a six-person HMO.

The layouts were very similar, with three rooms at ground floor, two at first floor, a larger attic room and a communal kitchen and dining area. Each room included an en-suite and kitchenette. The Inspector recorded that one house had undergone a loft conversion, while the other, which already had a converted loft, had a new single-storey rear extension to help create the HMO accommodation.

Direct access to each rear garden was only available through the two private rooms at the back of the house. Because the proposals concerned the same appellant, the same terrace and essentially the same planning issues, the Inspector dealt with them in a single decision letter while still stating that each appeal had been considered on its own merits.

Article 4 did not create an automatic refusal

The Wesley Avenue estate is one of five residential areas within the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation area covered by an Article 4 Direction. The Direction was made on 24th November 2022, confirmed on 23rd November 2023 and came into force on 1st December 2023. It removes permitted development rights for changes from Class C3 dwellinghouses to Class C4 HMOs.

That meant planning permission was required, but it did not answer whether permission should be granted for the Park Royal HMO. The appellant argued, correctly in principle, that the existence of an Article 4 Direction does not mean that every C3 to C4 application should be refused. The Inspector expressly accepted that point, responding: “That is so”.

The published Direction confirms the operative date as 1st December 2023, although the appeal decision describes the areas as designated in November 2023. He instead considered the evidence about housing supply and the particular circumstances of the estate. That distinction is important for anyone dealing with HMO applications in Article 4 areas. An Article 4 Direction removes a permitted development route.

It does not create a separate policy test saying that HMOs are prohibited. The planning judgement still has to be made against the development plan and other material considerations. Our Article 4 policy guide looks at the evidence and justification behind these directions.

Family housing shortage carried weight

The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) argued that the conversions would remove family-sized homes and add further HMOs in a neighbourhood where shared accommodation was already above average. The Inspector acknowledged that there was no clear numerical definition of HMO over-concentration in the evidence before him. He also accepted that HMOs form part of London’s housing needs.

However, the decision referred to London Plan and OPDC policies seeking additional family housing, together with the OPDC Authority Monitoring Report for 2024/25. That report showed delivery of new family homes below the corporation’s 25% family housing target.

The Inspector considered the loss of family housing particularly significant in the Wesley Estate, which sits within a large employment area where demand for homes close to work might reasonably be expected. He also noted evidence suggesting that existing HMO levels could be underestimated because different data sources use imprecise definitions and record occupancy in different ways.

One conversion might have had to be assessed differently. In these Park Royal HMO cases, however, two family houses in close proximity on the same street were before the Inspector at the same time. He concluded that their combined loss would be “harmful to the housing mix” within the estate.

No HMO concentration threshold was needed

The Park Royal HMO decision is useful because it did not depend on a simple percentage threshold. The appellant challenged the absence of a clear point at which HMO numbers become an over-concentration, and the Inspector acknowledged that criticism. He nevertheless found that the evidence was sufficient to judge the effect of these two schemes.

Existing HMO provision was already above average, family housing delivery was below target and the proposals would remove two further family homes within the same terrace. That is a more nuanced route than saying that a fixed percentage had been exceeded. It also means the decision should not be read as establishing a new numerical benchmark for Park Royal or elsewhere.

Noise concerns focused on the pair, not a stereotype

The OPDC also argued that the HMOs would harm neighbouring living conditions through noise, intensity of use and anti-social behaviour. The appellant pointed out that there had been no reported incidents since the properties were occupied. However, the Inspector did not know when occupation began, so that period might have been relatively short.

The Inspector did not assume that HMOs automatically produce noise or anti-social behaviour. He said there was no reason to suppose that either problem would necessarily arise at these particular properties. However, he referred to Metropolitan Police data from 2021/22 showing a concentration of call-outs in and around areas that were later covered by the Article 4 Direction.

More importantly, he considered the cumulative effect of two six-person HMOs within a few metres of each other. In his judgement, that combination would be likely to significantly increase the possibility of noise and anti-social behaviour and would certainly create a concentrated increase in intensity of use, with associated potential for disturbance to nearby residents. The Inspector described a “concentrated and increased intensity of use”.

The reasoning in these Park Royal HMO appeals is therefore narrower than a proposition that six-person HMOs are inherently noisy. It was the location, proximity and combined intensity that mattered.

Good internal standards did not rescue the schemes

In these Park Royal HMO appeals, the Inspector did not find that the accommodation had been badly converted or poorly managed. He recorded that the properties appeared to have been converted to a generally high standard. There were, however, questions about the standards relied upon by the appellant.

The decision notes that Ealing’s HMO standards referred to bedroom space with kitchen facilities but did not expressly deal with an en-suite within the same room. The nationally described space standard was also not treated as directly applicable to this HMO arrangement.

The Inspector had no evidence that either property had yet received an HMO licence and did not treat accommodation quality as a determinative issue. That is another useful reminder that planning and licensing remain separate regimes. Planning Geek’s HMO planning guidance explains the planning side, while our Use Class C4 guide covers the six-person use class limit.

Incorrect local search information did not change the outcome

The Park Royal HMO decision also carries a cautionary due diligence point. The appellant said that inaccurate information had been provided when checks were made about whether an Article 4 Direction applied. The Inspector accepted that incorrect information had apparently been supplied by the London Borough of Ealing. But Newark Crescent lies within the planning jurisdiction of the OPDC, not Ealing for these applications.

The chronology also mattered. The properties were said to have been purchased in early 2024, while official search certificates in the appeal evidence dated from February and April 2025. Those Ealing replies themselves identified the properties as falling within the OPDC area and supplied its website address. A later specific Article 4 enquiry was again sent to Ealing in October 2025.

The OPDC supplied a more detailed and accurate response later that month, by which time the HMO was apparently already in unauthorised use. “It is regrettable”, the Inspector said of the incorrect information received, but he did not regard it as a material consideration that should have altered the OPDC’s planning decisions. My advice to purchasers, agents and advisers is straightforward.

Checking whether an Article 4 Direction applies also means checking which authority actually exercises the planning function for the property.

Reversion to family housing was not treated as realistic

The appellant also argued that the housing stock had not really been lost because the Park Royal HMOs could be converted back to family homes in future. The Inspector was not persuaded. Each property had six kitchenettes, six en-suites and a separate kitchen and dining room. He considered that putting the buildings back into single-family use would be “extremely difficult, expensive and potentially non-viable”.

That finding in the Park Royal HMO appeals was fact-specific, but it shows why a theoretical ability to reverse works may carry little weight when the physical conversion has been extensive.

What the Park Royal HMO appeals mean

The two appeals were dismissed for two linked reasons. First, the conversions would adversely affect the local housing mix by removing two family-sized houses in an area where family housing provision was already under pressure. Second, the combination of two HMOs in close proximity would intensify use and create an unacceptable risk of noise and disturbance.

For me, the key lesson from these Park Royal HMO appeals is that the evidence must do the work. It does not say that an Article 4 Direction creates a presumption against every HMO. It does not identify a universal HMO concentration threshold. It does not say that HMOs necessarily cause anti-social behaviour.

Instead, the Inspector used the Article 4 background, housing evidence, local policy, the relationship between the two properties and the nature of the completed conversions to make a site-specific planning judgement. For applicants, the decision underlines the need to tackle housing mix and cumulative effects with evidence rather than relying simply on the absence of a numerical threshold.

For authorities, it shows that an Article 4 Direction is part of the evidential context, not a substitute for explaining why a particular C3 to C4 change is harmful. Our planning appeals guide explains the wider appeal process.

The official Planning Inspectorate records are available for appeal 6013035 and appeal 6013036. The combined decision is linked above.