Six-person HMO with extensions at 29 Broadway, Northampton

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a dwelling into a six-person HMO, with two-storey side and single-storey rear extensions.

“Development: Change of use of dwellinghouse (Class C3) to six-person house in multiple occupation HMO (Class C4) with a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension…”

“Proposal Change of use of dwellinghouse (Class C3) to six-person house in multiple occupation HMO (Class C4) with a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension…”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace home with a long rear garden, no off-street parking and mainly on-street parking nearby.

“The application site is located within the Abington area of Northampton and comprises a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling. The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by terraced residential properties, with parking primarily provided on street.”

“The application property benefits from a relatively long private rear garden; however, it does not provide any off-street parking and is therefore reliant on on-street parking.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no planning history directly relevant to this proposal, and the plans were amended to reduce the side extension’s scale.

“The proposal has been amended following officer advice, with revised plans received on 29/04/2026. The amendments include a reduction in the scale of the proposed two-storey side extension…”

“There is no planning history directly relevant to the proposal.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it would provide suitable accommodation, protect neighbours, fit the area and not harm highway safety.

“The proposed development is considered to respond sufficiently to the local character, provide a sufficient standard of residential amenity, protect neighbour amenity and not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety to accord with policies Q1, Q2, HO3 and MO2 of the Northampton Local Plan Part 2 as well as the Northampton Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, police and fire, and private sector housing raised no objections, while the town council commented and ward members objected.

“Consultations The following consultees have raised objections to the application: • Councillor Zoe Smith and Councillor Bob Purser…”

“The following consultees have raised no objections to the application: • Local Highways Authority • Environmental Health • Northamptonshire Police and Fire and Rescue (Designing Out Crime Officer) • Private Sector Housing.”

Officer report

Objections received

Eighty-four objections raised concerns including HMO concentration, parking, traffic, overdevelopment, neighbour amenity, disturbance, refuse, design and loss of a family home.

“There have been 84 objections raising the following comments: • Overconcentration and cumulative impact of HMOs • Highway safety and parking issues, including parking pressure, insufficient provision, congestion, and passing conflict • Visibility obstruction • Over-occupancy concerns • Construction disruption • Impact on residential character and street scene deterioration • Inadequate cycle storage • Future loft conversion concerns • Impact on neighbourhood •…”

“Increased comings and goings and general disturbance • Impact on neighbour amenity • Vehicle collision risk • Resident disruption • Property value concerns • Over-development • Community disruption • Unsuitable development…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two local residents and two ward members spoke against the application, citing intensification, parking, highway safety, overdevelopment and harm to neighbours.

What members debated

Members were concerned about cumulative HMO intensification, lost parking, an overbearing extension and overdevelopment of the smallest plot on the street.

“During the debate, Members of the Committee expressed concerns regarding the cumulative impact of HMO intensification on Broadway and the loss of parking spaces. Members also commented that the extension was overbearing and, owing to the site being the smallest plot on the street, represented overdevelopment of the plot.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted nine in favour, none against and one abstention on a motion to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation.

“It was proposed by Councillor Christine Ware and seconded by Councillor Phil Bignell that application 2026/1109/FULL be refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that the proposal, by reason of its design, siting and appearance, would be unduly dominant and impact on the residential amenity of the immediate neighbour and therefore was contrary to Policies Q1 and Q2 of the Northampton Local Plan Part 2, along with principles 1 and 4 of the Houses…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because the extension was considered dominant and harmful to the street scene and immediate neighbour’s amenities.

“(1) That application 2026/1109/FULL be refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:”

“The proposed two storey extensions by reason of its design, siting and appearance would not be viewed as subservient to the existing building and accordingly would result in development which would detract from the street scene in what is a prominent corner plot and would appear unduly dominant and overbearing to the immediate neighbour to the detriment often amenities the occupants of that property might reasonably expect to enjoy contrary to the provisions of Policies…”

Minutes

Why the recommendation changed

The committee also considered the HMO would harm local character and amenity and result in loss of off-street parking under the HMO guidance.

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed HMO would conflict with the provisions of Principe 1 and Principle 4 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (adopted November 2019) in that by reason of the two-storey extension it would result in a material change and adverse impact on the character and amenity of the area, and result in the loss of off-street parking respectively.”

Minutes