# 20-person HMO bid for ex-Scouts HQ refused amid concerns

**By:** Sophie Fagone Buscimese  
**Published:** 2026-09-14T12:54:58Z  
**Source:** [Derbyshire Live](https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/property/20-person-hmo-bid-former-11155516)

---

20-person HMO bid for former Derby Scouts HQ refused amid living standards fears
The applicant had claimed its move would help avoid the building 'falling into disrepair'

The former headquarter of Derby Scouts on Osmaston Road.(Image: Google)

A bid to turn a former Derby scouts building into a 20-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) has been refused by officials.
The Berry Group, billed as HMO construction specialists, had looked to convert the former Scouts HQ at 120 Osmaston Road into a 12-bedroom HMO, housing up to 20 people.
The building was originally built for residential use and then converted into the headquarter for Derby Scouts and Guides in 1974.
It has been vacant since the scouts relocated and it was put up for sale in 2024.
A previous application to home 18 people in the 2,700 sqm property has already been approved, but Derby City Council refused proposals to add a further studio, homing two further residents.
After revising their plans, a new communal garden had been added and kitchen size increased, and The Berry Group hoped to gain approval for the scheme.
The application said that The Berry Group "converts the buildings to a high standard with a high quality specification and aims to attract young professionals, students and highly skilled workers to the Derby City area.
"The conversion would allow a pleasant looking townhouse in a prominent location of Osmaston Road to remain occupied and avoid falling into disrepair."
However, city council officials refused the new application, saying it would "result in an unacceptable standard of living accommodation for future occupiers".
The Local Planning Authority (LPA) determined that the communal living space would not be appropriate for 20 occupants, resulting in an "over-intensive form of HMO accommodation".
"Whilst the ground-floor communal kitchen has been enlarged, this cannot reasonably compensate for the undersized kitchens on the first and second floors, as the larger kitchen is located on a different floor from the occupants those kitchens would principally serve," the LPA determined.
"The loss of the communal lounge secured by the extant planning permission would further reduce the quality of shared amenity provision."