Five-bed HMO at 74 Haigh Lane, Chadderton, Oldham

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a five-bedroom house in multiple occupation, with extra parking, bin storage and cycle storage.

“The application seeks permission to change the use of the property from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 5-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) which falls within Use Class C4. This application is necessary since the introduction of an Article 4 Direction on 1 January 2026 which has the effect of removing the permitted development right for this change of use to occur without planning permission.”

“Other works proposed include the creation of additional parking area to the rear of the property, a bin storage area, and a cycle store.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a detached single-storey bungalow with front and rear gardens, rear parking and a detached double garage.

“The application site is 74 Haigh Lane, Chadderton, Oldham. The property is a detached single-storey bungalow of traditional brick-and-tile construction, featuring a pitched roof with a central ridge and gable ends.”

“The property sits at a higher ground level than Haigh Lane and is positioned behind a brick retaining wall, with pedestrian access provided via a stepped pathway. The site benefits from both front and rear garden areas and has vehicular access and parking located to the rear. A detached double garage is also situated within the rear garden.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A kitchen extension at the property was granted permission in 1990.

“PA/025372/90 – Kitchen Extension – Granted 28.02.1990.”

Officer report

The officer recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because required biodiversity information had not been provided to assess habitat loss and biodiversity net gain.

“However, the proposal would result in the loss of more than 25m² of habitat and is therefore subject to the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements. Despite repeated requests from the local planning authority following receipt of the application no Biodiversity Net Gain information has been submitted.”

“The proposed development would result in the loss of more than 25m² of habitat and is therefore required to demonstrate compliance with the statutory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) provisions set out in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Despite repeated requests by the Local Planning Authority, no Biodiversity Net Gain information, including the relevant biodiversity metric calculations, has been submitted.”

Officer report

Specialist responses

The highways officer had no objection subject to cycle storage, and environmental health had no objection subject to conditions.

“Highways Officer No objection subject to a cycle storage condition.”

“Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

One hundred and twenty-one representations objected over character, safeguarding, parking, disturbance, waste, housing mix and other concerns.

“Concerns over increased noise, comings-and-goings, and disturbance. As residents have noted the activity at unsociable hours due to unrelated adults with differing routines could take place. • Potential for anti-social behaviour was frequently raised in comments. • Loss of privacy for neighbours, especially those directly adjacent.”

“Fear that an HMO will devalue neighbouring homes and concerns about reduced desirability of the area. • Inconsistencies in the planning documents (incorrect addresses, wrong property referenced). Discrepancies in company details (Footlong UK Ltd). • Missing or inaccurate information regarding trees, access arrangements, and waste storage • Residents raise concerns with the timing and amount of neighbour notification of the application.”

Officer report

Who addressed members

Ward members attended the meeting and addressed the committee on the application.

The committee vote

Councillors voted unanimously in favour of refusing the application after a motion and seconder were put forward.

“It was MOVED by Councillor Quigg and SECONDED by Councillor Harkness that the application be REFUSED.”

“On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF REFUSAL.”

Minutes