The Wigan HMO appeal over a six-person use at 90 Park Road has been dismissed after the Inspector found that building work carried out before the borough-wide Article 4 Direction took effect did not prove the C4 use itself had begun.
The decision also shows why staying below a council’s numerical concentration threshold is not necessarily enough. Although the proposal was below Wigan’s 10% threshold, the Inspector found the local pattern of HMOs, including the sandwiching of a neighbouring house, would still cause harm.
Work had started, but the HMO use was not proved
The appeal concerned a three-bedroom dwelling which had been altered to provide a six-bedroom, six-person Class C4 HMO, together with a rear dormer, two front rooflights and other external changes.
The appellant said acquisition of the property began in December 2024 with the intention of creating a small HMO. The appeal statement corrected earlier dates and said conversion work began on 1st August 2025.
Wigan’s borough-wide Article 4 Direction removing the permitted development right for changes from C3 dwellinghouses to C4 HMOs came into force on 31st August 2025.
That left a crucial gap. Inspector N Duff accepted that work had been carried out before the Direction took effect, but found no substantive evidence that the material change of use to C4 had actually taken place by that date.
The distinction matters. An intention to change use, or physical work preparing a property for that use, does not by itself establish that the new use has begun. Planning Geek’s Class L guide explains the C3 to C4 permitted development route, while our Article 4 section covers how those rights can be withdrawn.
Why the Wigan HMO appeal still failed below 10%
Wigan’s HMO Supplementary Planning Document uses several controls to protect mixed communities, including a concentration threshold, restrictions on three adjacent HMOs and a rule against ‘sandwiching’ ordinary homes between HMOs.
The council accepted that the proposal would not exceed the 10% concentration threshold and would not create three adjacent HMOs.
But existing HMOs were identified at 88 and 94 Park Road. With No.90 used as an HMO, No.92 would be left as a non-HMO mid-terrace property between HMO properties.
The Inspector considered that arrangement harmful. Taken with the other HMOs in this short section of Park Road, the proposal would create a noticeable local concentration and would not contribute positively to a balanced housing mix.
Noise and parking added to the harm
The Inspector also found that six people living independently were likely to generate more comings and goings, at a wider range of times, than a single household occupying the former three-bedroom dwelling.
Acoustic improvements could reduce noise travelling through the building, and a management plan could control some use of the rear yard. Neither answered the wider concern about activity at the property and the cumulative effect alongside nearby HMOs, particularly for occupiers of No.92.
Parking was another problem. The appeal property has no off-street parking and a single yellow line runs along its side of Park Road. Although cycle storage, nearby services and public transport counted in the scheme’s favour, the Inspector considered six independent occupiers likely to increase pressure on already heavily used on-street spaces.
The council’s highway adviser had not objected on highway capacity or safety grounds, but that did not prevent parking competition being treated as a residential amenity issue.
The 2026 Framework did not rescue the scheme
The parties were invited to comment on the new National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026. The Inspector recognised benefits including additional housing choice, a sustainable location and the extra floorspace created by the dormer.
Those benefits did not outweigh the identified harm to mixed and balanced communities, local character and neighbouring living conditions. The appeal was dismissed on 21st September 2026.
The practical point is narrower than saying a sub-10% HMO must fail. This decision turned on the immediate pattern around the site, the sandwiching of No.92 and the combined amenity effects. Wigan’s percentage threshold was one part of the assessment, not an automatic safe harbour.
Read the locally hosted appeal decision or see appeal 6008977 on the Planning Inspectorate service.
0 Comments