Nine-person HMO at 2 Litherland Park, Litherland

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a home into a nine-person HMO, with porch and rear extensions, front alterations, and bin and cycle storage.

“Date of Meeting: 16 th September 2026 Subject: DC/2025/01989 2 Litherland Park, Litherland, L21 9HP”

“Proposal: Change of use from residential (Use Class C3) to HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) (Sui Generis) (9 Units/persons), erection of single storey porch extension, alterations to the front elevation and a single storey extension to the rear, with associated bin and cycle store…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a large detached property in a primarily residential area, with existing accommodation across basement, ground and first floors.

“The application site is a rectangular plot comprising a large, detached property located on the south side of Litherland Park. The existing property includes a bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom at basement level; two lounges, hallway room, dining room and kitchen at ground floor; and as well as a bathroom and four bedrooms (one with terrace access) at first floor level.”

“The application site is situated within a Primarily Residential Area. History 2.2 Application DC/2025/01576 for ‘change of use from residential (Class C3) to HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) (Sui Generis) (9 Units/persons) at ground and first floor levels and 1no.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval, finding the proposal acceptable in principle and compliant with planning policies, subject to conditions.

“The applicant has provided an appropriate bin area in regard to waste. Planning Balance and Conclusion 6.39 The proposed use is acceptable in principle within the residential area. It is not considered to cause an oversupply of flats or HMOs in the local area and as such, is not causing significant impact to the character of the area.”

“On balance the development is considered to comply with the relevant policies in the Sefton Local Plan, Bootle Area Action Plan, supplementary guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In the absence of any material factors which would suggest otherwise, it is recommended that the proposal is approved subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Officers’ main findings

Officers found suitable room and outdoor space, four parking spaces, acceptable highway effects, no significant neighbour harm, and no harmful HMO concentration.

“The SPD requires 10sqm of outdoor amenity space per occupant of each HMO. The requirement for this proposal is 90sqm. The rear garden of the proposal provides 120sqm of usable amenity space which is acceptable.”

“In an attempt to address the previous highway-related grounds for refusal the applicant attempted to demonstrate that 4no parking spaces can be accommodated within the site curtilage. While earlier assessments raised concerns regarding the practical clearance between the outer parking spaces and the site's vertical boundary structures, a comprehensive reassessment of the layout has been undertaken by the highways team.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highways Manager, Environmental Health Manager, Merseyside Police and Local Plans raised no objections, subject to highway conditions where applicable.

“Highways Manager No objection subject to conditions.”

“Environmental Health Manager No objection.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

A petition with 2,003 signatures and 132 objection letters raised concerns about parking, traffic, noise, overlooking, crime, waste, character and over-intensification.

“The application was ‘called in’ by virtue of a petition with 2003 signatures being endorsed by Cllr Dowd, Cllr Moncur and Cllr Lappin. Neighbours were notified of the proposal by letter on 17/12/2025. A total of 132 letters of objection were received. These are summarised as follows:”

“Impact on neighbours • Devalue Area/will lower house prices • Parking problems/increase in traffic. -Might impact emergency services going through area • Additional massing and rear extension risk overshadowing and overlooking adjacent homes, harming privacy and outlook. • Concerns over safety/increase in crime. • Waste management. • Close to a school and local club.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard a petition on behalf of objectors, a response from the applicant’s agent, and representations from the ward councillor on behalf of objectors.

Members’ concerns

Members were concerned about increased occupancy, effects on neighbouring living conditions, and effects on the character of the area.

“Arising from the discussion Members expressed concern regarding the increased occupancy as a result of the proposed development, the consequent effect of the development on the living conditions for neighbouring properties and the effect on the character of the area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee did not approve the recommendation and resolved to refuse the application.

“That the recommendation be not approved and the application be refused for the reason that the development would cause significant harm to the conditions of neighbouring residents and to the Character of the area and as such was contrary to Local Plan Policies HC4 and EQ2.”

Minutes