7-bedroom HMO at 121 Long Lane, Chadderton, Oldham

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Oldham Planning Committee on 23 Sept 2026.

FUL/356274/26RefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a vacant takeaway and first-floor residential unit into a seven-bedroom house in multiple occupation.

“Proposal: Change of use of vacant takeaway unit (ground floor) and residential unit (first floor) into a 7 bedroom HMO.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The semi-detached property forms part of a mixed commercial and residential terrace beside a children’s nursery, with a predominantly residential wider area.

“The application site relates to a semi-detached property located at 121 Long Lane, Chadderton. The site occupies a position within a small terrace of mixed commercial and residential uses fronting Long Lane. Immediately adjacent to the east is The New Play Alma Mater Day Nursery at 123 Long Lane, whilst the wider area is predominantly residential in character.”

“The site is in close proximity to the Broadway/M60 Junction 21 where other retail and fast food uses exist such as Burger Eats, Subway, Boat and Horses Public House and Costco.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the vacant building could return to use, the location was sustainable, and impacts could be controlled by conditions.

“The proposal seeks to bring a long-vacant former takeaway and associated residential accommodation back into beneficial use through conversion to a 7-bedroom HMO in a sustainable location close to local services and public transport.”

“Having regard to relevant development plan policies within the Oldham Local Plan, the Places for Everyone Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Consultees and objections

Environmental Health and Highways raised no objections subject to conditions, while 64 objections and one neutral representation were received.

“CONSULTEE FORMAL RESPONSE Environmental Health Formal response received. No objections to the proposal. Conditions required for soundproofing and acoustic recommendations within the Noise Impact Assessment Highways Formal response received. No objections, subject to cycle storage condition.”

“In response, at the time of writing this report, 64 objections have been received along with 1 neutral representation. An objection has also been received from Jim McMahon MP. The main points of concern raised by representations are summarised below:”

Officer report

Main concerns raised

Concerns included the nursery, parking, highway safety, noise, HMO concentration, antisocial behaviour, waste, local businesses and future management.

“The safety and wellbeing of children attending the nursery. • Potential overlooking of the nursery's outdoor play areas from the proposed HMO. • Loss of privacy for nursery users. • Concerns regarding safeguarding arising from unrelated adult occupants living immediately adjacent to the nursery. • Potential impacts on parents' confidence in the nursery, which some respondents consider could affect the viability of the business.”

“Existing traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. • Parking pressures associated with nearby businesses and the nursery. • The absence of dedicated parking provision for the proposed development. • Potential overspill parking generated by HMO occupants and visitors. • Highway and pedestrian safety concerns during nursery drop-off and collection times.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

An objector and ward members attended the meeting and addressed the committee.

Why permission was refused

Permission was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated that additional on-street parking demand would avoid unacceptable effects on traffic, pedestrians and highway safety.

“RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed change of use to a seven-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (sui generis), which provides no off-street parking, would not adversely affect traffic levels, on-street parking demand, and the safety of road users.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The members' reasons are quoted from the minutes above, under “Why permission was refused”.

Sources

  • Oldham Planning Committee minutes, 23 September 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Oldham's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Oldham
Date
Wednesday 23 September 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

27 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →