Side extension to create en-suites together with side utility

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2019 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3060/D/18/3215459 19 Ingham Grove, Nottingham NG7 2LQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Asgar on behalf of Secure Accommodation against the decision of City of Nottingham Council. • The application Ref 18/01381/PFUL3, dated 8 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 October 2018. • The development proposed is side extension to create en-suites together with side utility. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • The implications of the proposal for the achievement of balanced communities, with particular reference to its potential effect upon the character of the area; • The effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance and on-street car parking arrangements. Reasons Balanced communities and the character of the area 3. The appeal site contains a large, 2-storey detached property that is located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac and on a street that is generally comprised of large detached dwellings. The appeal property itself is currently used as a house in multiple occupation (a HMO) for students and contains 7 bedrooms in addition to shared living space. The Council has confirmed that their records indicate the presence of 2 further HMOs in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, at Nos 17 and 20 Ingham Grove. 4. I understand that the wider residential area that contains the appeal site contains a large number of HMOs rented to students. Policy ST1 of the Nottingham Local Plan (November 2005) (the Local Plan) states that proposals for development shall be considered amongst other criteria, against their contribution to the provision of a balanced mix of housing size, type and affordability in the area, particularly promoting housing for families with Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/18/3215459 2 children. Policy ST1’s supporting text confirms that family housing is particularly important to sustain local communities, and in particular support local schools as centres of communities. 5. Furthermore, the supporting text to Policy H6 of the Local Plan, which relates to student housing, explains that demand from students for rented accommodation has led to the conversion of larger houses, and consequently to the loss of family housing. The supporting text also explains that the concentration of student housing in particular areas has resulted in a substantial transient population which is less likely to contribute to local communities. 6. The proposed extensions would be relatively small in size and, in visual terms, would have an acceptable effect upon the street scene. The proposal involves no increase in the number or the size of the existing bedrooms at the site. However, whilst the appellant has stated that the proposal’s intention is to increase the property’s desirability to potential renters rather than to increase the number of student bed numbers at the site, the en-suite/ utility facilities that are proposed would increase the site’s floor space capacity and raise the potential for additional occupancy to be accommodated in the future. The scheme would therefore promote community imbalance through further intensifying the existing use of the appeal site as a HMO in a wider area that is already characterised by a large number of HMOs. 7. The proposal would not support balanced communities and would cause harm to the character of the area in conflict with Policies ST1 and H6 of the Local Plan, Policy 8 of the Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategy (September 2014) (the Aligned Core Strategy) and with the guidance contained within the Building Balanced Communities Supplementary Planning Document (March 2007) (the BBCSPD) in so far as these polices and guidance require that proposals for development will be considered against their contribution to the provision of a balanced mix of housing size, type and affordability in the area, particularly promoting housing for families with children and appropriate dwellings which allow older or disabled people to stay in their local community. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 8. The appeal site’s immediate surroundings are generally typified by large dwellinghouses. As I have already noted, from the evidence before me, Nos 17 and 20 Ingham Grove (in addition to the appeal property itself) are currently occupied as HMOs. As set out in the BBCSPD, host communities can feel that their amenity and quality of life is impaired from high student concentrations for a number of reasons, including due to significant problems of ‘low level’ anti-social behaviour (in particular noise nuisance). 9. I have already identified that the proposed extensions would promote an intensification of the existing use of the appeal site as a HMO. The potential for noise and disturbance to occur in the vicinity of the site as a result of the appeal property and other nearby properties being occupied as HMOs would be exacerbated by the proposal therefore, if only to a limited degree, and this would compound the harm I have already identified to the character of the area. 10. With respect to on-street car parking arrangements, it was apparent from site inspection that parking opportunities are restricted upon Ingham Grove. Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/18/3215459 3 During my inspection no cars were parked on-street close to the site, although I acknowledge this situation would have the potential to alter throughout any given day. I also noted that the appeal site contains a single garage and a fair- sized driveway that appeared capable of accommodating up to 3 parked vehicles. In the context of the parking facilities available on-site, I am not persuaded that the proposal in itself (i.e. modest sized extensions to the appeal property) would likely generate additional demand for car parking to such an extent that would cause harm to neighbouring living conditions by virtue of its effect upon on-street car parking arrangements. This is particularly as there is no certainty that the proposal would ultimately lead to a higher level of car ownership at the site. 11. However, for the above reasons, I consider that the proposal would promote harm being caused to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance, and would conflict with Policies NE9 and H6 of the Local Plan, Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy and with the guidance contained within the BBCSPD in so far as these policies and guidance require that the living conditions of neighbouring residents will be safeguarded. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Smith INSPECTOR