Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs
Hi All, do C4 HMOs benefit from Part 1 PD rights for extensions?
Clearly Part 1 applies to 'dwellinghouses' and that infers C3 only, but it's often trotted out that you can't rely on one statutory instrument (e.g. the Use Classes Order) to define another (e.g. the GPDO) etc.
If anyone can shed any light I'd be grateful.
Steve Speed - The Planning Jungle website, modified 10 Years ago.
Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs
Enthusiast Posts: 70 Join Date: 12/08/13 Recent PostsSteve Speed - The Planning Jungle website, modified 10 Years ago.
Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs
Enthusiast Posts: 70 Join Date: 12/08/13 Recent Posts[IMPORTANT UPDATE]
Hi all,
With regards to this issue of whether an HMO (i.e. a C4 "small HMO" or a sui generis "large HMO") benefits from Part 1 of the GPDO, please note that there have been the following significant changes over the last few months.
Firstly, the Planning Inspectorate has recently produced the following document that advises its Inspectors that an HMO can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO:
- Advice produced by the Planning Inspectorate for use by its Inspectors – 15 January 2014 - Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Permitted Development Rights (link).
Secondly, the balance of appeal decisions has significantly changed over the last few months. For example, in my above post (dated November 2013), I stated that there had been 3 appeal decisions that concluded that a C4 HMO does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO versus 1 appeal decision that concluded that a C4 HMO does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. However, since then, there have been 4 more appeal decisions (3 of which were determined after the publication of the above document), all of which have concluded that a C4 HMO does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. This means that the balance of appeal decisions has now changed from 3 vs 1 to 3 vs 5, and (as a result of the above document) is likely to continue in the latter direction.
Thanks,
Steve
Thanks Steve for the comprehensive response. I figured it wouldn't be black and white, but 3 to 1 ratio works for me. It's likely that on an HMO the extension would form an extra bedroom so it makes sense to me that the potential impacts above and beyond those of a 'normal' householder PD extension should be assessed via a planning application.
I agree with the inspector's reasoning in the second appeal decision above and consider that C4 HMOs can in principle benefit from PD rights:
"I consider that HMOs, whether occupied by up to six residents, and hence falling within Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (the UCO), or more than six residents, and hence a sui generis use, are dwellinghouses for the purposes of the GPDO, provided that they are not expressly excluded from that definition. In other words, a HMO is simply a type of dwellinghouse use. It is not a condition of qualifying for GPDO PD rights that a “dwellinghouse” is a “dwellinghouse” of a particular type described in the UCO. Since the appeal building is not excluded from the definition of ‘dwellinghouse’ by virtue of containing one or more flats, I am satisfied that it benefits from the PD rights granted by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. As a result the appellant does not have to demonstrate, as he has sought to do in this case, that the house is being occupied as a single family dwelling."