12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ
Middlesbrough Council * — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Authority
- Middlesbrough Council *
- Inspector
- Harding C
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- Ata Ul Waheed Usman
- LPA reference
- PP-12927745
- ONS LPA code
- E06000002
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 29 April 2025
Summary AI
The appeal for a change of use from dwelling house to HMO was dismissed due to insufficient information provided to demonstrate suitable living conditions. The inspector found that the proposal conflicted with the development plan and no material considerations outweighed the harm.
PDF text
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2025 by C Harding BA (Hons) PGCert PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 July 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/W/25/3364048 12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough TS1 4QJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ata Ul Waheed Usman on behalf of Kaments Ltd against the decision of Middlesbrough Council. • The application Ref is 24/0121/FUL. • The development proposed is described as “The property was a dwelling house, changed to HMO by the previous owner on or before 29/04/2018. The previous owner have carried out the work and an HMO license was granted to him on 29/04/2018. The HMO license was issued to us "Kaments Ltd" on 08/08/2023. A change of use approval is required from Dwelling House to HMO Note: We are not intended to carry out any work. A Certificate of Lawful use for the property being used as a Sui Generis HMO, is required by our Lender” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2.
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision The description of the development used on the Council’s decision notice differs from that provided on the planning application form which is vague and contains superfluous information. The Council described the proposal on its decision notice as “Change of use from dwellinghouse to 7 bed House in Multiple Occupation (retrospective)”. In the interests of clarity, I have considered the proposal on this basis as it more accurately describes the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether sufficient information has been supplied to demonstrate whether suitable living conditions would be provided to future occupiers, with particular reference to internal space. Reasons 4. The only drawings which have been put before me are a site location plan and an extract from the Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning. I have not been provided with any drawings indicating the internal layout of the property in either its original or proposed form. I do, however, note that the appellant has indicated that no internal changes would take place. The Council has made reference to a layout plan and highlighted deficiencies within it, but in any event, this plan is not before me. 5.
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision On my visit, those rooms currently occupied as bedrooms did not appear to be obviously deficient in terms of their size. However, without accurate drawings before me, I cannot be certain that the relevant criteria of either the Council’s https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision On my visit, those rooms currently occupied as bedrooms did not appear to be obviously deficient in terms of their size. However, without accurate drawings before me, I cannot be certain that the relevant criteria of either the Council’s https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W0734/W/25/3364048 Interim Policy on the Conversion and Sub-Division of Properties, or the Government’s Housing Standards would be met. 6. It is stated that the appeal property has been occupied as a House in Multiple Occupation (‘HMO’) since 2018, and that prior to this it was occupied as a C3 dwellinghouse, however there is nothing before me to indicate that such a change was lawful. It is unclear when, if at all, the property was previously occupied on a seven-bedroom HMO basis. 7. It is not within the scope of this appeal to determine whether the use of the property as an HMO, whether of seven bedrooms, or fewer, would be lawful. The fact that the property may have operated as an HMO for a number of years, and indeed been licenced as such during this period, carries little weight given the uncertainty over whether such a use would have been lawful. 8. As an application for planning permission has been made to regularise the use, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether the standard of accommodation proposed would be suitable, having regard to the most recent and up-to-date guidance. On the basis of the limited evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that this would be the case. 9.
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision I therefore conclude that insufficient information has been supplied to demonstrate that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular reference to internal space. The proposal would conflict with Policy DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy which states, amongst other factors, that sufficient information should be supplied to enable the determination of an application. Other Matters 10. The appeal site is within the Impact Risk Zone of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Cleveland Coast Ramsar site. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations), and as advised by Natural England, a Competent Authority must consider the nutrient impacts of projects and plans which affect habitat sites before granting permission. In relation to this appeal, this responsibility falls to me. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further in this instance. Conclusion 11.
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — Appeal Decision The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
12 Crescent Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 4QJ — Middlesbrough Council * — C Harding INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Living conditions Against appellant ¶8
The proposal would conflict with the standard of accommodation required, as per the most recent guidance, and sufficient information was not provided to demonstrate that suitable living conditions would be provided to future occupiers.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶9
The proposal would conflict with Policy DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy, which requires sufficient information to be supplied to enable determination of an application.
Flood risk Neutral ¶10
The appeal site is within the Impact Risk Zone of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and Cleveland Coast Ramsar site, but no consideration was required as the appeal was dismissed on other grounds.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| DC1 |
Determinative |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 July 2025 under the Open Government Licence.