Three-person HMO at 43 Victoria Grove, Osmondthorpe, Leeds

What was proposed

The application sought to change a single-family dwelling into a three-bedroom, three-person house in multiple occupation with shared living areas.

“The applicant seeks permission for the conversion of a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) into a three person (bedroom) House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) (HMO). This application comes off the back of a previous application which sought retrospective permission for a 4 bedroom HMO.”

“Bedroom 1 (first floor level) will have a floor area of approximately 10.72sqm. • Bedroom 2 (first floor level) will have a total floor area of approximately 10.3sqm, with a useable floor area of 9.32sqm. • Bedroom 3 (second floor level) will have a floor area of approximately 9.43sqm, with a usable floor area of 8.90sqm. • At ground floor level there is a shared Kitchen and Living room.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a mid-terrace dwelling with roof accommodation, front and rear dormers, and a small rear amenity area.

“The application site relates to a two storey (with accommodation in the roof) mid-terrace property constructed out of red brick and covered in a pitched gable roof. At some point in time dormer windows have been added to the front and rear of the roof of the property. The property has a simple and balanced appearance with minimal original architectural features.”

“The dwelling sites directly adjacent to the public footpath, meaning that there is no defensible space to the front of the dwellinghouse. But to the rear is a small compact amenity area. This rear area is bounded by a mixture of brick walls with close boarded fence panels sitting atop of it.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

A previous four-bedroom HMO application was refused for inadequate occupant amenity, while an unauthorised-use enforcement case remains ongoing.

“Planning applications: Reference: 25/02620/FU Proposal: Retrospective application for change of use of a residential properties (Use Class C3) to a HMO (Use Class C4) Status: Refused Date: 06-08-2025”

“Planning Enforcement cases: Reference: 24/00053/HMO3 Nature: Unauthorised change of use from a residential property into a small HMO Status: DC Application Submitted Date: Ongoing – Waiting for the outcome of the current application…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered that reducing the HMO from four to three occupants resolved amenity concerns, with no significant harm to the area, neighbours or highways.

“As will be outlined below the current application resolves previous concerns relating to the level of amenity provided for future occupants. This combined with the development being acceptable in principle, and causing minimal harm to highway safety, means that the application will now be recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Specialist responses

Flood Risk Management and Highways raised no objections, subject to conditions.

“Flood Risk Management: No objections, subject to conditions…”

“Highways: No objections, subject to conditions…”

Officer report

Objections from the area

Nine objections raised concerns about antisocial behaviour, parking, noise, community character, property values, living conditions, bins and infrastructure.

“The area already has issues with anti-social behaviour and crime. The proposed HMO will intensify this. This will make other residents feel unsafe within the area. • On street Parking is in high demand within the area so the introduction of a HMO with new residents who own cars will make the current parking situation worse. This in turn may have an impact on foot traffic as cars may park up on the curb and block visibility.”

“The introduction of a HMO will result in the formation of a transient population and will reduce long-term community stability. This will lead to a decreased sense of community cohesion and may lead to more anti-social behaviour in the area. • The HMO will generate high levels of activity due to increased comings and goings from the property and general shared living arrangements.”

Officer report

What ward councillors said

Ward councillors described the area as family-oriented and raised concerns about unlicensed HMOs, antisocial behaviour, vehicles blocking pavements and changing the area’s character.

What members debated

Members recognised concerns about family homes and parking but found no specific evidence showing that unlicensed HMOs would create greater harm than assessed.

“The Chair invited the Panel Members to make comments which included: • Could understand the concerns in relation to losing family homes. However, there was no specific evidence in relation to numbers of unlicensed HMOs. The basement was not going to be used. Therefore, there was no issue in relation to flood risk. Parking on streets of terraced houses was always difficult. • There was no specific evidence.”

Minutes

The vote

Members moved and seconded the officer recommendation, then voted to grant planning permission subject to the stated conditions.

“Upon voting, a motion was put forward to move the officer’s recommendations, as per the submitted report. This was moved and seconded, and it was RESOLVED - To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out within the submitted report.”

Minutes