A Plymouth HMO appeal has been allowed even though the outdoor amenity space at 58–60 Ocean Street was only around half the figure indicated by the council’s HMO guidance.
The decision is not a licence to ignore HMO standards. Instead, it shows why a numerical figure in a Supplementary Planning Document needs to be read with the wording around it, particularly where the guidance expressly says that exceptions should be considered case by case.
What the Plymouth HMO appeal was about
The property at 58–60 Ocean Street, Plymouth was already in use as a six-person Class C4 HMO. Application 25/01695/FUL sought permission to increase the occupation to nine people, taking the use into the larger sui generis HMO category. A cycle and bin store was also proposed in the rear courtyard.
Plymouth City Council refused the application on 17th March 2026. The subsequent appeal, reference 6007122, was allowed by Inspector Nick Davies on 4th September 2026.
The council’s planning register confirms the application history and refusal.
The outdoor-space figure came to 135 square metres
The adopted Joint Local Plan requires adequate communal space for HMO residents but does not itself set a numerical outdoor-space standard. The more detailed figure is in the Plymouth and South West Devon Supplementary Planning Document.
For an HMO with more than seven occupants, Table 11 indicates 15 square metres of outdoor amenity space per person. For nine residents that produced a guideline figure of 135 square metres.
The Inspector had not been given a measured area for the rear yard, but estimated that the usable space was around half the guideline figure. The proposed cycle and bin store would reduce it further. On the numbers alone, the proposal therefore fell well short.
Planning Geek’s guide to Supplementary Plans and SPDs explains the role of this type of guidance in planning decisions.
The SPD itself required a flexible approach
The important part of the decision is what happened next. The SPD says its outdoor-space guidance should be applied flexibly. It specifically allows the council to consider the location of the site, nearby public open space and whether the property is in an older, densely developed neighbourhood where small yards are typical.
It also says exceptions can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Where private outdoor space is restricted, applicants are expected to show that residents have good access to public green space.
The appellant also produced two examples where Plymouth had taken that flexible approach on comparable HMO proposals. The Inspector treated that as relevant context rather than applying 135 square metres as an absolute pass or fail test.
A small courtyard still had practical value
Ocean Street is in an older and densely developed part of Plymouth. Small rear yards are commonplace and some nearby properties have very little outdoor space at all.
At the appeal property, the Inspector found that residents would retain a private courtyard enclosed by high boundary walls. It was not large, but it remained usable for basic everyday activities such as drying clothes.
There was also public open space close by. Alexandra Park and Keyham Green Places were within about 250 metres, while North Downs Park Sports Field was within around 300 metres.
Taking those circumstances together, the Inspector found that the limited on-site space was sufficiently mitigated by the property’s location and access to public green space.
Parking was the other main issue
Plymouth’s highway authority had objected. Its response said the existing six-person HMO generated an indicative requirement of three spaces, while the proposed nine-person HMO would increase that to five. The property has no off-street parking.
The Inspector accepted that extra residents could create some additional demand, but the SPD’s parking figures were also indicative rather than rigid. At the weekday afternoon site visit, the Inspector was able to park immediately outside the building and saw vacant kerbside capacity for around ten cars within 100 metres, with further availability in nearby Renown Street.
That was a snapshot rather than a guarantee that parking would always be easy. Even so, the Inspector was not persuaded that the additional three residents would cause a noticeable reduction in parking availability, obstruct traffic or create a highway-safety problem.
Area-wide car ownership did not prove HMO car ownership
The council relied in part on evidence that 71.65% of households in the area own a car. The Inspector said that figure might not reflect car ownership among HMO occupants in the locality.
The site’s accessibility also mattered. Bus stops and a railway station were within about 300 metres, a convenience store within 200 metres, and a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities within an 800-metre walk.
The Inspector therefore found that the additional residents would not be reliant on private cars. Planning decisions still need to be based on the circumstances of the development rather than assuming that a borough-wide or neighbourhood statistic automatically predicts the behaviour of a particular group of residents.
This does not make HMO amenity standards optional
The result needs some care. A council can still refuse an HMO where inadequate external space would lead to unacceptable living conditions, and an SPD can carry real weight where it is consistent with the development plan and national policy.
What this appeal shows is narrower. Where the council’s own SPD says a numerical standard is to be applied flexibly, the decision-maker should carry out that flexible assessment. The size and usefulness of the remaining space, the character of the neighbourhood, access to public open space and the needs of the likely residents can all be relevant.
The decision also sits alongside the separate questions of internal HMO standards and licensing. Planning Geek has guidance on HMO bedroom sizes and the distinction between C4 HMOs and larger sui generis HMOs.
The practical lesson from the Plymouth HMO appeal
For applicants, the lesson is not simply to say that an SPD is only guidance. A stronger case explains why the guidance itself supports a departure from the headline number and then provides evidence for each factor that makes the site acceptable.
- Measure the private amenity space accurately and explain how residents can actually use it
- Quote the SPD wording that allows flexibility rather than focusing only on the table
- Identify nearby open space by realistic walking distance
- Address parking with site-specific evidence rather than broad assumptions
- Show how sustainable transport, shops and services reduce reliance on a car
For councils, the same principle works in reverse. If a proposal is to be refused for falling below a guideline, the reasons should explain why the particular shortfall causes unacceptable harm in the circumstances of that site.
Read the appeal decision
The appeal is 6007122. Planning Geek hosts the full appeal decision for 58–60 Ocean Street in our own library. The Planning Inspectorate case page remains the official case record.
Created: 5th September 2026
Updated: 5th September 2026
0 Comments