York HMO appeal wins despite 18.87% street concentration

A York HMO appeal has succeeded after a planning Inspector found that an office-to-HMO proposal could not be treated in the same way as a dwellinghouse conversion under York’s adopted concentration policy. The decision, issued on 8th October 2026, permits York St John University to create a five-person Class C4 house in multiple occupation at 44 Lord Mayors Walk.

In the York HMO appeal, City of York Council had relied on concerns about the social balance of the area and the absence of secured cycle parking.

Its calculation placed the existing HMO concentration within a 100-metre street section at 18.87 per cent, above the 10 per cent figure used in Local Plan Policy H8. However, the application concerned a building in Class E office use, rather than an existing dwellinghouse.

Inspector S Hartley concluded that the change would not cause substantial harm to the area’s character, neighbouring living conditions or community mix, with parking and management matters controlled by conditions. The separate application for appeal costs was dismissed. The distinction between permission and a costs award is important, as is the limited scope of the decision to the specific facts.

York HMO appeal: why the concentration policy carried less weight

Policy H8 of York’s adopted 2025 Local Plan restricts proposals changing a dwellinghouse into an HMO where identified concentrations are too high.

Among other measures, the policy uses a neighbourhood test of less than 20 per cent and a street test of less than 10 per cent within 100 metres either side of the property. These figures are intended to help avoid excessive concentrations that can alter neighbourhood character and balance.

York Council accepted that the proposed development did not strictly fall within the parameters of Policy H8 or the relevant Article 4 Direction.

It nevertheless considered the policy’s methodology a useful proxy for assessing the effects of another HMO in the street. The council’s assessment suggested 18.87 per cent within the local street section, while the neighbourhood figure remained within the policy’s limit.

The appellant challenged the accuracy of some of the properties counted in the council’s calculation. The Inspector noted that the data criticism was not substantively answered in the council’s final response. More decisively, he found that giving very considerable weight to a policy specifically directed at conversions from existing dwellings was not justified when the starting use was offices.

In the York HMO appeal, the Inspector therefore afforded Policy H8 only limited weight, even as a proxy for social balance. That is not the same as saying HMO concentrations can never be considered outside the policy’s literal scope. The decision still examined whether the actual development would materially harm character, neighbours or social mix, using the relevant development-plan policies.

University ownership and the site’s surroundings

The appeal building stands alongside the York St John University campus and next to residential terraced streets. It had been held and occupied by the university for many years, with a close physical and functional relationship to the campus. The Inspector considered that context when assessing the likely practical effect of housing five occupiers at the property.

He concluded that a university-owned and managed HMO in this setting would not produce substantial harm to the neighbourhood’s character, its residential amenities or the wider community balance. That finding was based on the particular site, its historic association with the university and the proposed management arrangements, rather than a general exemption for university-backed HMOs.

The decision also considered York Local Plan Policy ED4, which anticipates that any student accommodation shortfall on campus may be met at appropriate locations near the university. The Inspector recorded evidence of student numbers increasing from approximately 4,900 in 2010 to around 10,000 in 2025/26. He treated the building’s proximity and existing connection to campus as relevant to the assessment.

Policy ENV2 was satisfied because the proposal would not cause unacceptable effects on living conditions. With no external alterations proposed, the Inspector also found no conflict with Policy D1 in so far as it protects the character and quality of the surrounding area.

Cycle storage could be secured by condition

The council’s second refusal concern in the York HMO appeal was the absence of an adequately demonstrated cycle storage arrangement. The Inspector inspected the building and saw a rear yard within the application boundary. He considered it capable of accommodating cycle storage, as well as refuse facilities, without having to rely on uncertain land outside the red line.

The permission therefore contains a condition requiring details of storage for five bicycles to be submitted and approved before the HMO is first used. This is a practical illustration of a condition resolving a defined detail where the decision maker is satisfied that compliance is achievable within the development site.

The appellant had produced further cycle parking drawings after refusal, but the Inspector did not rely on those drawings because they had not been subjected to public consultation. Instead, the conclusion came from what the physical site could support and the ability to secure the details by a properly worded planning condition.

Management and occupation limits remain binding

Approval was granted for no more than five occupants, rather than the six people permitted in principle by the upper limit of Class C4. The Inspector imposed a specific occupancy cap. Any later attempt to exceed that permission would need its own assessment against the relevant planning law and the terms of the consent.

Before first use, the appellant must also obtain approval of an HMO management plan identifying who will manage the property and setting out processes for complaints, noise, nuisance, refuse and external maintenance.

The HMO must then be managed in accordance with the approved plan. These conditions make the permitted operation more tightly defined than a generic statement that the property may be used as an HMO.

Building regulation requirements, HMO licensing and planning permission remain different controls. The planning appeal does not automatically establish that a licence is needed or granted, and it does not remove any duties under housing or fire-safety legislation. Planning consultants should keep these approval regimes separate when advising operators.

Why the claim for appeal costs failed

In the York HMO appeal, York St John University sought a full costs award, arguing that the council had unreasonably relied on HMO concentrations and taken too rigid a stance on bicycle storage. The Inspector dismissed that application, despite allowing the planning appeal.

He concluded that the council had a factual basis for its concerns and could reasonably refer to the Policy H8 methodology when considering broader character and amenity issues, even though it did not apply directly.

The absence of acceptable cycle plans at the time of the council decision also explained why officers had not assumed a condition would solve the problem.

A different planning conclusion at appeal did not prove unreasonable behaviour by the council. A costs claim requires more than demonstrating that a refusal was overturned; it must show unreasonable action causing unnecessary or wasted appeal expense.

Practical implications for HMO applicants

The first lesson is to test a restriction against its actual wording. A concentration policy drafted around conversions from Class C3 dwellinghouses may not automatically control a change from Class E offices. That does not remove other development-plan tests relating to amenity, character, management or housing supply.

Secondly, evidence should be checked carefully. If a council relies on an HMO percentage, the categories counted, measurement geography and currency of the records can affect the reliability of the result. Applicants should be precise about whether they challenge the policy’s application, the underlying count or the evidence of harm.

Thirdly, where limited operational details can be satisfactorily secured by condition, applicants should demonstrate clearly why the physical space can accommodate them. This case is particularly useful on cycle storage and management plans, but it does not establish that a condition can cure every missing element of an application.

The 8th October decision is an Inspector’s determination of one appeal, not a court judgment or a binding reinterpretation of York’s Local Plan. It is nevertheless a valuable example for assessing the limits of HMO concentration policies where the existing use is not Class C3.

Official decision and further reading

Primary appeal documents: Appealbase decision 6013076, including costs and Planning Inspectorate appeal record. Related Planning Geek guidance: HMO planning, change of use and Article 4 Directions.