The Planning Inspectorate has overruled Liverpool Council's decision to refuse four houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) in Wavertree, Toxteth and Mossley Hill. The council had deemed the properties unlawful earlier this year, but the inspectorate found the authority had not handled evidence correctly.
Council's Evidence Handling Criticised
In one case, an eight-person HMO on Greenbank Park was refused after the council said it failed to prove continuous occupancy for the 2015-2016 period. However, the inspectorate found the council had not requested available evidence and instead placed the onus on the applicant. When the evidence was provided during the appeal, the decision was overturned.
Another property on Hartington Road was refused over concerns about occupancy of two rooms during Covid-19, when the property was temporarily let on an individual basis. The council rejected documentation that indicated but did not confirm occupancy, which the inspector found failed to adhere to its own guidelines.
Article 4 Direction and Other Cases
Since June 2021, an Article 4 Direction has restricted the conversion of single dwellings into HMOs. HMOs with three to six unrelated occupants did not require planning permission before this date, provided they can prove existence prior to it and no material change in use.
An application on Thornycroft Road was incorrectly treated as a larger HMO and refused based on lack of continuous occupation evidence. Another on Lidderdale Road was refused for failure to prove operation before the Article 4 Direction, but this evidence was provided in the appeal and also incorrectly judged as a large HMO.
Council Response
A Liverpool Council spokesperson said: “The council is determined to seek greater controls over the creation of new HMOs to protect family housing, support balanced neighbourhoods and prevent over concentrations in particular areas.
“While in these particular cases the council did not feel assured by the evidence provided by the landlord and therefore rejected the applications for a Certificate of Lawfulness, applicants exercised their right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which independently reviewed the evidence and reached a different conclusion. This result does not change the council’s position on the need for stronger controls over HMOs.
“While these appeals were about specific evidence, the council’s wider work is about protecting tenants and balanced neighbourhoods.”
