What makes a shared house a hostel? It's down to tenure, management and relationships
A dwelling house or a house in multiple occupation? The distinction can be very important, as the Court of Appeal discovered in the case of R (Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council [2002 EWCA GV 886].

The case revolved around houses maintained by English Churches Housing Group in Northamptonshire to provide temporary accommodation and support for small groups of people in need. These included homeless people, addicts and people suffering from mental health problems. In May 2001, Kettering council decided the use of three of ECHG's houses fell within class C3 of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987: "Use as a dwelling house (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by a single person or by people living together as a family, or by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents)." In other words, the properties had the same classification as a house with only one family in it, and therefore ECHG's use did not amount to a change of use that required planning permission.

A neighbour challenged this, contending that the properties were hostels. This would represent a change of use requiring planning permission. The neighbour felt she had suffered from antisocial behaviour by some of the residents in the properties; she was also concerned about fire risks and contended that each of the properties was a "house in multiple occupation" under the 1985 Housing Act – "a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household" – and should be made subject to various health and fire safety controls. The case turned on whether the residents of the properties were "living together as a single household", and the court considered some precedents.

One precedent, Barnes v Sheffield City Council (1995) 27HLR719, concerned a house let annually to five students. The group of students was held to form a single household. Barnes set out nine questions that could help decide whether or not there was a single household, including: did the residents arrive in a single group or were they independently recruited by the landlord? Was the group stable? What were the communal facilities? Who was responsible for filling vacancies and the allocation of rooms?

Did the residents arrive in a single group or were they independently recruited by the landlord? Is the group stable?

In another precedent, Rogers v Islington LBC (1999) 32 HLR138, the Court of Appeal commented that the nine factors in the Barnes case were unworkable for housing officers and concluded that there had to be some sort of relationship that bound the occupants together for them to form a single household.

In ECHG's case, the court held that because ECHG had total management control and the residents did notcome as a pre-formed group nor for a predetermined period, the properties were in multiple occupation and could also probably be viewed as hostels.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal decided that the first court had not considered Circular 13/87, issued by the government as a guide to the changes arising from the 1987 Town & Country Planning order. This circular specifically refers to "the single household concept" and comments that "small-group homes play a major role in the government's community care policy". Furthermore, it states: "[Class C3] includes not only families or people living together under arrangements for providing care and support within the community, but also other groups of people such as students, not necessarily related to each other, who choose to live on a communal basis as a single household." The Court of Appeal ordered the local authority to reassess the planning use of ECHG's properties.