Ten-person HMO at 97 Bush Hill, Northampton

What was proposed

The application sought to increase the existing six-person HMO to ten occupants, including a substantial roof extension and large rear box dormer.

“The impact of the increase in occupancy of the HMO property on the character and amenity of the area • Impact on parking and highway safety in the area • Design and visual impact of the proposed roof extension…”

“The application seeks permission to increase the number of occupants of the existing HMO from six to ten. The proposals include a substantial roof extension over the existing flat-roofed first floor side extension incorporating a large box dormer at the rear extending across the roof.”

Officer report

Site and earlier history

The property is an extended semi-detached house in a residential area, with an established six-person HMO use granted lawfully in January 2025.

“97 Bush Hill is a typical inter-war two-storey semi-detached house situated in a residential area. The property appears to have been previously extended with an unsympathetic side extension with a flat roof. This part of Bush Hill consists of generally similar semi-detached properties. It is not within a conservation area. There is predominantly on-street parking in this area.”

“No.97 is an established HMO for six occupants and was granted a Lawful Development Certificate on 28/01/2025. The property is not currently included on the West Northants public register of HMOs, although it was granted a 6 person/6 household HMO licence in August 2020,which expired in August 2025.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the increased occupancy and roof extension would harm neighbouring amenity and the character of the area.

“In this case the additional occupancy of the HMO is considered likely to result in over intensification of the use, beyond what would normally be expected from a dwelling of this size to the extent that it would have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties as well as the character of the area.”

“In addition, the proposals include a roof extension incorporating a large rear dormer which due to its size and siting, would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties and would be a prominent feature, out of character in the area where there are predominantly hipped roofs.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council and ward councillor objected, while highways, environmental protection, private sector housing and police consultees raised no objection in principle.

“Consultations The following consultees have raised objections to the application: • Cllr Cameron Emery • Northampton Town Council…”

“The following consultees have raised no objections to the application: • WNC Environmental Protection • WNC Private Sector Housing • WNC Highways • Northants Police Designing Out Crime Officer…”

Officer report

What residents said

Fourteen residents objected over occupancy, character, noise, parking, HMO concentration, drainage and household waste; highways found no clear safety impact.

“WNC Private Sector Housing Advice The HMO will require an appropriate licence. The property was previously licensed for 6 persons in 6 households. Other comments relate to requirements for fire protection, emergency escape, ceiling heights and natural lighting in rooms, ventilation and access/staircases room heights and fire safety measures relating to the attic rooms.”

“Adverse impact of the increase in occupancy of the existing HMO • Impact on character of the area • Adverse impact on residential amenity due to increase in activity and noise/disturbance • Pressure on existing parking situation • Further increase/concentration of HMOs • Impact on drainage and household waste…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two local residents spoke against the proposal about parking, waste, noise, overlooking, amenity and the extension’s appearance, and a ward member’s objection was read out.

Committee discussion

The committee considered the officer’s report and presentation, public speakers’ addresses and committee updates before deciding the application.

“It was proposed by Councillor Adrian Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Alexander McMurtry that application 2026/0646/FULL be refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation. The motion was put to the vote with eleven votes cast in favour of the proposal, no votes cast against with no abstentions, therefore the motion was carried, and the application was refused.”

“In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the Case Officer’s report and presentation, the addresses of the public speakers, and the Committee Updates.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee refused the application because the intensified HMO would harm adjoining living conditions and local character, while the roof extension would harm a neighbour’s rear amenity.

“The proposed increase in the number of occupants of the HMO to ten would result in an intensification of the use of the property which would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties and would result in a development out of character in the area.”

“The proposed roof extension incorporating a large rear dormer, would, due to its size, massing and height in relation to the adjoining property to the south, No.95 Bush Hill, have an adverse effect on amenity at the rear of that property.”

Minutes