Five-bed house in multiple occupation at 12 Eaves Lane, Chorley

What was proposed

The application sought to change a former dwellinghouse into a five-bedroom house in multiple occupation without external alterations.

“Proposal: Change of use of former dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to 5 bed House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).”

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a 5 bed house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4). No external alterations are proposed to facilitate the proposal.”

Officer report

The site

The end-terrace dwelling is in a high-density urban area, has no in-curtilage parking, and is surrounded mainly by terraces, flats and nearby commercial uses.

“The application site comprises an end of terrace dwelling on the corner of Eaves Lane and Frederick Street, in the core settlement area of Chorley. The site has a small rear yard and a shallow garden frontage. It has no in-curtilage parking. The site is surrounded predominantly by terraces comprising dwellinghouses with some flats and some commercial uses in close proximity. The character of the area is that of a traditional high density inner urban area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier certificate application for the same five-bedroom house in multiple occupation was refused in October 2025.

“Ref: 25/00809/CLPUD Decision: REFPUD Decision Date: 24 October 2025 Description: Application for a certificate of lawfulness for the use of the residential dwelling (C3) as a 5 bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4) for up to 5 people.”

“Ref: 85/00764/OUT Decision: PEROPP Decision Date: 25 February 1986 Description: Outline application for erection of 8 houses on site of former church…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the site sustainable and finding no unacceptable impact on character, highway safety, capacity or amenity.

“The proposed development is acceptable in principle and would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing site or the surrounding area. The lack of parking provision is considered to be acceptable in this instance given the highly sustainable location of the property and there are no concerns regarding highway safety, capacity or amenity as a result of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection subject to conditions, Environmental Health had no objection, and the proposal was exempt from the infrastructure levy.

“Lancashire Highway Services have raised no objection to the proposal subject to the use of conditions • Regulatory Services - Environmental Health – no objection but have commented to remind the applicant that a HMO licence will be required separate to the planning process. • CIL Officers – the proposal is exempt from CIL”

Officer report

Objections raised

One objection raised concerns about parking, drainage, emergency access, pavement use, insurance, car ownership and whether drainage had been properly considered.

“One letter of objection has been received raising the following issues:”

“Unsuitable information relating to drainage • Blocking access for emergency vehicles • Cars forced to mount the pavement • Fails to accord with Policy HS10 on relation to parking provision • Will invalidate insurance for people who can't park near their own homes • The occupants should be limited to those not owning cars; however this would not be adhered to • Drainage should be considered as part of this application as the property has most recently been occupied by a…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor spoke during the consideration of the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee unanimously refused permission because of parking pressure, limited resident amenity, and unacceptable effects from increased activity on a neighbouring property.

“After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Katie Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Martin Topp and resolved (unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the following reason:”

“The proposal offers limited off-street car parking provision and given the lack of on- street parking in the immediate area the proposal results in an intensification of the use of the site that will lead to an increase in demand for on-street parking in the area to the detriment of highway safety in the local area.”

Minutes