A Stourbridge HMO appeal has been allowed after an Inspector found no compelling evidence that the proposed four-bedroom house in multiple occupation would increase crime, disorder or fear of crime.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council had refused permission for the conversion of the first and second floors of 7 Market Street, Stourbridge, to a four-bedroom Class C4 HMO. The main appeal issue was the effect on crime, fear of crime, quality of life and community cohesion.
The decision does not say that crime can never justify refusing an HMO. It shows something more useful: a planning authority still needs evidence connecting the identified crime issue with the development it is considering.
Crime was a material issue in the Stourbridge HMO appeal
Dudley’s Residential Design Guide says the potential effect of crime, disorder, fear of crime and community cohesion should be considered when assessing HMOs. Evidence from neighbours and the police can therefore be relevant.
The Designing Out Crime Officer had referred to crime statistics from the previous 12 months and the Inspector recorded that crime in the local area was above the national average.
That established a real local context, but it did not complete the planning case against the proposal. The Inspector said there was no compelling evidence that the existing crime level was related to HMOs in the area and no evidence that adding this HMO would increase crime.
This distinction matters when making or assessing material planning considerations. Crime and fear of crime can be material, but the weight placed on them depends on the evidence and the relationship with the particular development.
Transience did not establish increased criminality
The council’s case also raised the more transient nature sometimes associated with HMO occupation.
The Inspector accepted that HMOs can involve more transient occupation, but made two important qualifications. HMO occupation is not always transient and, even where occupiers do move more frequently, that does not itself show that criminality will increase.
The appellant had supplied data indicating that average current tenancies were just under three years. The decision therefore had evidence before it that did not fit a simple assumption of very short-term occupation.
Planning Geek analysis: the point is not that length of tenancy can never matter. It is that a chain of reasoning needs evidence. Moving from ‘some HMO tenancies may be shorter’ to ‘this HMO will increase crime’ requires more than assertion.
Future HMO occupiers cannot simply be stereotyped
Third-party representations also raised a perceived increase in fear of crime. The Inspector noted that none came from immediate neighbours or properties elsewhere within the town centre and found little evidential basis for the concern.
The decision is particularly clear that assumptions could not be made about the character or nature of future occupiers. The Inspector regarded the suggested association between residents of a modest HMO and crime as subjective conjecture.
This is a useful reminder for anyone preparing planning objections. Objections should focus on land-use impacts that can be evidenced, rather than assumptions about the people who may occupy a development.
The town-centre context also mattered
7 Market Street sits in a densely urban town-centre location with a predominantly commercial character. The Inspector described this type of mixed-use occupation as characteristic of the location and said HMOs are an important part of the housing mix.
That did not amount to a blanket endorsement of HMOs in town centres. It was part of the factual context against which the claimed harm had to be assessed.
A separate concern suggested that HMO occupiers might park elsewhere, reducing natural surveillance and increasing crime risk. Again, the Inspector found the evidence too speculative.
It was not known where occupiers would park, what surveillance existed there or, given the town-centre location and public transport, whether future occupiers would own cars at all.
The Planning Geek takeaway
Dudley was entitled to consider crime, disorder, fear of crime and community cohesion. The appeal succeeded because the evidence did not demonstrate the necessary link between those concerns and this four-bedroom HMO.
The practical lesson is straightforward. A council cannot safely move from ‘crime is high in this area’ to ‘therefore this HMO will increase crime’ without evidence supporting that conclusion.
Read the Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6009469. Planning Geek also explains the Class C4 HMO use class and the effect of HMO Article 4 Directions.
Created: 14th September 2026
0 Comments