A Preston HMO appeal has been allowed, granting permission to convert part of a former religious retreat into a five-bedroom house in multiple occupation. Planning Inspector N Unwin reached the decision on 30 October 2026 after Preston City Council failed to determine the application within the prescribed period. The ruling concerns premises on Sharoe Green Lane and is accompanied by a separate decision refusing the applicant’s claim for appeal costs.
The applicant, Sapphire Property Investments Ltd, wanted to change the use of part of a former farmhouse and associated buildings from a sui generis religious retreat to Class C4 HMO accommodation. The Inspector examined whether five off-street spaces could work safely and whether residents would have acceptable living conditions, particularly given previous disputes about much larger parking proposals elsewhere on the site.
The Preston HMO appeal is useful because it separates three quite different questions. Did the proposed five-bedroom use meet planning policy? Was the council entitled to raise concerns about access, outdoor space and vehicle manoeuvring? And did the handling of the application justify an award of costs? Permission was granted, but the separate costs application failed.
Why the Preston HMO appeal succeeded
The proposal was made under application 06/2026/0157 for part of a U-shaped group of buildings beside Sharoe Green Lane. The property had last operated as a religious retreat. The land within the application boundary included part of the former farmhouse, the north-east wing and areas outside the building intended for parking and amenity space. The plan showed five bedrooms rather than the substantially larger shared-living schemes previously considered at the location.
The appeal was not brought against a formal refusal. It arose because Preston City Council had not issued a decision within the prescribed period. The Inspector therefore assessed the merits of the change of use directly, having regard to the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, the adopted local planning policies and the limited weight appropriate to the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan.
The Preston HMO appeal resulted in permission after the Inspector found that matters still requiring detail could be controlled by a condition. The outcome does not grant permission for all physical work, parking areas or other independent uses across the wider site. The limits of the red line around the application mattered to what the Inspector could actually decide.
Five parking spaces were considered, not 52
At the site visit, extensive hardstanding and parking spaces were visible across adjoining land. Some parking arrangements were already subject to enforcement action, and the separate enforcement appeal was identified as 6015218. The planning drawings for the HMO application also depicted spaces outside its red line, leading to objections about a wider total of 52 spaces. The Inspector expressly confined the decision to the land and proposed works within the actual application boundary.
Within that boundary the scheme proposed five parking spaces in the courtyard. The council queried whether drivers would be able to turn and manoeuvre without affecting residents, while the highways consultation suggested that slightly wider bays could improve movement. Rather than rejecting the HMO outright, the Inspector considered that the site could accommodate an acceptable arrangement subject to the approval of further parking details before occupation.
For a Preston HMO appeal, this distinction is not merely technical. A plan can show existing features outside an application site without granting permission for them. Whether a nearby parking layout is lawful, or subject to separate enforcement proceedings, must be established on its own facts. The decision should not be cited as approval of the wider parking use or earlier refused schemes.
Why the Inspector found the living conditions acceptable
The council was concerned about noise, disturbance and the quality of private outdoor space. The bedrooms would be on the first and second floors, with the five intended parking spaces set away from the building. The Inspector considered vehicle movements generated by a small Class C4 HMO likely to be modest and found that the parking would not materially harm occupiers’ living conditions.
A sizeable outdoor area was proposed to the north of the building, but its relationship with the driveway raised another concern. Without proper definition, residents’ garden space could become an informal manoeuvring area. The Inspector treated that as a design problem capable of resolution through landscaping and parking-layout conditions, not a reason that the principle of a five-bedroom HMO must be refused.
The Preston HMO appeal also required care when assessing earlier appeal decisions concerning the same location. The Inspector distinguished previous proposals for a 31-bedroom HMO and 65 parking spaces. Those applications involved a quite different intensity of occupation and activity. A previous adverse decision is relevant evidence, but it does not automatically determine a smaller and materially different planning proposal.
Access, safety and the neighbouring NHS car park
The Inspector noted a nearby NHS Trust car park served by an entrance to the south of the HMO site. A fence then prevented vehicles travelling from that car park through the wider land, meaning the HMO proposal relied on a separate existing access from Sharoe Green Lane. The council had raised concerns that vehicles might meet at this access, especially without the one-way system shown in an earlier, refused application.
That one-way arrangement had not itself secured planning permission. The Inspector assessed the existing lawful access and the modest additional movements expected from five HMO bedrooms. He concluded that any simultaneous movements would be infrequent and that the scheme would not harm highway or pedestrian safety. The conclusion was tied to this scale of occupation, not a determination that a high-volume parking operation elsewhere would be acceptable.
For anyone reading the Preston HMO appeal alongside an enforcement case, the lesson is to separate the development applied for from unauthorised activity on neighbouring land. Using a larger operational site as though everything in it is already lawful can lead to inaccurate comparisons. A planning permission only authorises what its description, plans, conditions and lawful implementation actually cover.
The costs application was refused
The applicant separately sought a full award of costs against Preston City Council. The criticism included alleged inconsistency about what would be recommended to committee, changes to the description of the proposal and council objections extending beyond the land inside the application boundary. However, an appeal costs decision asks whether unreasonable behaviour actually caused avoidable or wasted expense, not simply whether an appellant ultimately won permission.
Inspector Unwin acknowledged that some council concerns related to parking outside the application site. But objections also concerned matters within the red line, including the ability to use outdoor space and manoeuvre vehicles safely. The applicant would still have needed to address those matters in the appeal. On the evidence, the Inspector found no causal link between the alleged shortcomings and unnecessary expenditure.
The Preston HMO appeal therefore delivered permission without a costs award. The separate decision concludes that an award of costs is not warranted.
That does not excuse every delay or communication problem at an authority; it means the test for costs was not met in these proceedings. Our guide to costs in planning appeals explains why unreasonable conduct and the expense it actually causes are both essential.
What the planning conditions require
The permission includes the usual three-year commencement limit and compliance with specified approved plans. A separate condition requires hard and soft landscaping details, including the vehicle parking layout and an implementation programme, to be submitted and approved before the HMO is occupied. Those details must then be carried out as approved and maintained.
The Inspector did not impose every condition requested by the council. In particular, a requirement about external materials to a building that was not proposed to undergo external changes was considered unnecessary and unreasonable. The condition actually imposed was directed at the issues underpinning the objections: safe parking arrangements and usable external space for future occupiers.
What owners and investors should learn
Changing a former religious retreat, which has a sui generis planning use, into a Class C4 HMO is not the same as converting an existing Class C3 dwellinghouse under permitted development. The lawful starting use matters. Our HMO planning permission guide and change-of-use guidance explain why a specific permission can be needed even where only a modest internal rearrangement is proposed.
The Preston HMO appeal highlights the value of a clearly defined application boundary, realistic vehicle movement evidence and amenity space that remains available to residents. It also shows why a costs application needs its own evidence of unnecessary work and expense. The planning appeal and the costs application were distinct decisions with different tests, and the appellant succeeded in only one.
Decision and sources
Inspector N Unwin decided appeal 6011180 on 30 October 2026, allowing the change to a five-bedroom Class C4 HMO at Sharoe Green Lane, Preston, subject to conditions. A separate costs decision dated the same day refused an award against Preston City Council. The brief quoted words above are from that costs decision and are reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments