Plans to turn a six-bedroom house of multiple occupancy (HMO) into a seven-bed are off the table after a decision by the Planning Inspectorate.

An application for 104 Ainsworth Road, Bury, was refused by the council last year.

The applicant, Emerald Property Capital Limited, appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after the application was refused.

%image('17662730', type="article-full", alt="The property from above")

This was due to concerns about whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of indoor and outdoor space.

Read more: Bury residents object to bedsits plan at former care home

It also touched on the lack of communal space inside the property should it house seven people.

%image('17662729', type="article-full", alt="Rear of the property")

The applicant argued that it is unlikely that all of the rooms in the property would be occupied on a full-time basis and that occupiers of HMOs are unlikely to prepare food and eat together at the same time.

But after a hearing on January 8, a government inspector sided with the council’s initial decision. 

The government inspector threw out the appeal on the same basis.

Read more: Plans submitted to convert houses in Bury and Radcliffe

They said: "Should seven persons be using this space at one time, either to cook, eat or relax, it would feel very cramped, with space around the table restricted and additional options for seating away from the table very limited.

Read more: Bury gym reopens after 'amazing' £500,000 renovation

“The proposed occupancy level would significantly restrict the functionality of this communal room, to the detriment of the living conditions of occupiers.”

They added: “The proposal would provide an additional bedroom in an HMO and it is suggested that there is a need and demand for this type of accommodation in the locality.

“I afford this benefit limited weight due to the small scale of the proposed development.

"The proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for occupiers, harm which leads to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

“There are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

“Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed”.