Three-person HMO at 54 Arundel Street, Ashton-under-Lyne

What was proposed

The application sought part-retrospective permission to change a dwellinghouse into a three-bedroom HMO for three residents, with no external alterations.

“Proposal: Change of use of dwellinghouse (use class C3) to small HMO for occupation by three residents (use class C4) – Part retrospective.”

“Part retrospective planning permission is sought to change the use of the dwellinghouse (use class C3) to a 3 bedroom/person HMO (use class C4). The HMO would comprise 3 bedrooms, a living room to each floor, a combined kitchen/dining area and two bathrooms one on each floor.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey end-terraced residential property with a rear outrigger and small yard, without allocated off-street parking.

“The application property relates to a two-storey end-terraced property on Arundel Street in Ashton-under-Lyne. The property features a two-storey outrigger to the rear and a small rear yard area. The property is faced in red brick, dark brown oak effect upvc windows and grey upvc door, slate roof. The property does not benefit from any allocated off-street parking. The application is unallocated as per the Tameside UDP.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications for a five-person HMO and its claimed lawful use were refused before this revised three-person proposal was submitted.

“26/00035/FUL - Change of use of dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small HMO for occupation by five residents (Use Class C4) (RETROSPECTIVE). Refused on 12.03.2026. 3.2 25/00823/CLUD - Lawful Development Certificate for Existing Use: Conversion of the property from residential (Use Class C3) to 5 person HMO (Use Class C4). Refused on 03.12.2025.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the proposal acceptable in principle and finding no significant harm to neighbours, highway safety or future occupants.

“The LPA do not consider the proposed HMO to cause significant noise and disturbances to neighbouring residents, having regard to the previous use of the property as a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse. The scale of occupation associated with a 3- person HMO would not materially exceed the level of activity that could reasonably arise from the lawful occupation of the property as a family dwelling.”

“For the above reasons, the proposed change of use, from a dwellinghouse to a 3 bedroom/person HMO is considered acceptable and compliant with local and national policy and thereby is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Twenty-seven objections cited overdevelopment, noise, parking, waste, amenity, management, HMO concentration and other concerns; one neutral comment welcomed fewer occupants.

“Overdevelopment of the site and development considered out of character with the surrounding area. • Harm to the character of the neighbourhood and concerns regarding the cumulative concentration of HMOs in Ashton and Cockbrook. • Noise, disturbance, and increased activity arising from occupiers, including frequent comings and goings and late-night activity. • Concerns that the proposal would create an institutionalised form of accommodation harmful to residential amenity.”

“Allegations of previous breaches of planning control and non-compliance with HMO requirements at the property. • Concerns regarding the adequacy of internal accommodation and communal facilities. • Adverse impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, including privacy and disturbance. • Concerns that approval would set an undesirable precedent for further HMOs in the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the Panel, followed by a representative speaking on behalf of the applicant.

The committee’s decision

Members refused the application because cumulative comings and goings by residents, visitors and deliveries would harm neighbouring properties’ amenity.

“Speakers Rebecca Stone and [name withheld] addressed the Panel objecting to the application. [name withheld] addressed the Panel on behalf of the applicant. Decision RESOLVED – Members resolved to refuse the application as follows: The cumulative impacts of the associated comings and goings of residents, visitors, deliveries arising from the form of residential occupation would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties contrary to the requirements of Tameside…”

Minutes