An appeal for a 32-person sui generis HMO in Northampton has been dismissed after an Inspector found that the independently occupied property would generate a materially different pattern and intensity of activity from its lawful former use as a residential care home.
The decision is particularly useful because the proposal remained below the council’s headline 10% HMO concentration threshold. That did not prevent the Inspector looking at what a single 32-person HMO would actually do to the character and living conditions of this particular residential area.
But West Northamptonshire Council did not escape criticism. A separate costs decision made a partial award against the council because the final reason for refusal included inadequate amenity space even though the committee minutes did not show members discussing or resolving to refuse the scheme on that basis.
Care home and HMO activity were not treated as the same
Inspector Eleni Marshall dismissed appeal 6011524 on 7th September 2026. The appeal concerned The Leys, 63 Booth Rise, Northampton, where permission had been sought retrospectively to change a lawful Class C2 residential care home into a sui generis HMO for a maximum of 32 people.
The Inspector accepted that both uses would generate movement and activity. The planning question was not whether the former care home had been silent, but whether the proposed use would produce a materially different effect.
She found that it would. The former care-home use involved older residents and a managed pattern of staff, visitors and deliveries. By contrast, up to 32 HMO residents would live independently, with their own comings and goings, visitors and social activity, potentially over a wider range of hours and into the evening.
The resulting intensity, noise and movement would harm nearby occupiers’ living conditions and would sit uneasily with the prevailing quiet residential character.
Being below 10% HMO concentration was not the end of the exercise
West Northamptonshire’s 2019 HMO Supplementary Planning Document includes a concentration test under which a proposal should not result in more than 10% of properties within a 50-metre radius being HMOs.
The appeal proposal did not exceed that headline figure.
That did not make the percentage irrelevant, nor did the Inspector say numerical concentration policies can simply be ignored. Her point was narrower. The SPD was drafted around the sort of HMO proposals normally encountered, whereas a single HMO for 32 people was far larger than the great majority of large HMOs.
The number of HMO properties around the site therefore remained below the threshold, but the scale of this one proposal was itself capable of creating a notable concentration of independently occupied rooms and a materially different effect on the area.
Our analysis: that is a useful warning against treating an HMO concentration percentage as a substitute for assessing the development actually proposed. Compliance with the arithmetic can be important, but it does not answer every separate question about scale, intensity, character and neighbour amenity.
Amenity space was acceptable on appeal
Other parts of the council’s case did not succeed. The Inspector found the private and communal external amenity areas, including the rear garden and courtyard, acceptable for the proposed occupants.
Nearby public open space was also relevant to the overall assessment. She did not find a conflict with Policy Q2 on the amount of amenity space available to residents.
That conclusion matters for the later costs decision, because inadequate amenity space had nevertheless appeared in the council’s formal reason for refusal.
Parking evidence did not justify refusal
The Highway Authority had raised no objection, and the Inspector regarded the site as being in a reasonably sustainable location.
The parking survey showed a significant amount of available on-street parking within the survey area. The Inspector found that parking concerns could not reasonably sustain a refusal on the evidence before her, particularly as the site was in a sustainable location and the Highway Authority had raised no objection.
This is a familiar distinction in planning decision-making: local concern about parking can be a material consideration, but a refusal still needs evidence capable of demonstrating the planning harm alleged.
Fire safety and the new DM7 policy
The appeal also contains an early application of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework and its national decision-making policy DM7.
The Inspector considered fire-safety concerns raised in relation to the HMO, but noted that relevant requirements were also controlled through other regimes, including HMO licensing and Building Regulations. On the evidence before her, there was no substantial basis for assuming those regimes would be ineffective.
That should not be turned into a rule that fire safety can never be a planning matter. The decision is much more specific: in this appeal, the Inspector did not consider it appropriate to duplicate controls which were properly addressed through the relevant regulatory regimes where there was no evidence that those controls would fail.
The committee was entitled to disagree with its officers
The application had been recommended for approval by officers, but West Northamptonshire’s Non-Strategic Planning Committee refused it on 7th May 2026. The council’s published committee record confirms the decision was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.
That fact alone did not make the council unreasonable. Planning committees are decision-makers and can properly reach a different planning judgement from their officers where they have defensible planning reasons for doing so.
The separate appeal costs decision makes exactly that distinction. The problem lay in what happened to the reason for refusal afterwards.
Why the council faces a partial costs award
The committee discussion and motion focused on the scale and intensification of the HMO and its effect on neighbouring amenity and the residential character of the area.
However, the final reason for refusal went further and said the site also lacked sufficient amenity space for the proposed occupants. The Inspector found that the minutes did not show members discussing or resolving to refuse the scheme for that reason.
The appellant therefore had to spend time and money contesting an amenity-space case which did not properly reflect the committee’s decision. That amounted to unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary expense.
The costs award was consequently partial only. It relates to the expense of contesting the on-site amenity-space element, not the whole appeal. The council was still entitled to defend the character and neighbour-amenity issues on which the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Our analysis: this is a practical lesson for planning committees. Members do not have to follow officer advice, but the final reason for refusal should accurately record the planning case that members actually resolved to advance.
What the Northampton appeal shows
Two separate points make this appeal worth keeping.
- A very large HMO can cause unacceptable planning harm even where a simple HMO concentration percentage is technically satisfied
- A committee can depart from officer advice, but the formal reason for refusal must be supported by the decision the committee actually made
The first is about applying policy to the real scale and character of a proposal. The second is about decision-making discipline and avoiding unnecessary appeal costs.
Sources: appeal decision 6011524; the separate costs decision for appeal 6011524; West Northamptonshire Council’s published committee record and HMO SPD; and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
You can read the full Northampton appeal decision 6011524 and the separate costs decision 6011524, both hosted by Planning Geek.
Created: 8th September 2026
0 Comments