Two storey and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3060/D/18/3216485 9 Elmsthorpe Avenue, Nottingham NG7 2BU  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 Brin Nijran against the decision of City of Nottingham Council.  The application Ref 18/01567/PFUL3, dated 1 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 October 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey and single storey rear extension at 9 Elmsthorpe Avenue, Nottingham NG7 2BU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/01567/PFUL3, dated 1 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ELMS-04 Rev A, ELMS-05 Rev B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the maintenance of a balanced community, with particular regard to the proportion of houses in multiple occupation (HMO). Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a three bedroom terraced dwelling that is currently in use as a HMO that is occupied by students. There is no suggestion that this is not the lawful use of the building. The property has a HMO license for up to 4 occupants. The development would result in the extension of the kitchen and lounge areas and two bedrooms. It would not therefore necessarily lead to any increase in the occupancy of the building. 4. The Council has indicated that the site lies in an area with a high proportion of non-family dwellings and is thus considered ‘unbalanced’. The relevant development plan policies seek to restrict the growth of HMOs and student accommodation in areas such as this and promote a return to family homes. Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/18/3216485 2 However, in this case the development would not lead to any change in the proportion of non-family dwellings in the area. As such, it would have a neutral impact on the existing balance of the community and would thus not conflict with the Council’s policy objectives. 5. There is no suggestion in the evidence that there is any imminent likelihood of this property returning to family use or that its current form is unsuitable for continued use as a HMO. Moreover, the development would in no way prejudice the use of the building as a family home in the future should that become a realistic opportunity. Indeed, increasing the size of the kitchen, lounge and bedrooms might make it a more attractive proposition as a family home in the future. While the development may result in an improved standard of accommodation, I see no reason why this should in and of itself result in conflict with the Council’s strategy regarding community balance or cohesion. 6. While no mention of this is made in the reason for refusal, there is an implication in the officer report that the existing use is having a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. It is not clear whether this is based on any specific evidence or a generalised assertion about the potential impacts of HMOs and/or student accommodation. Nevertheless, while the development would provide more space, there is unlikely to be any change in the level of activity within the building or the level of noise generated. As such, it is also unlikely there would be any material increase in noise or disturbance or harm to the living conditions of neighbours. 7. Furthermore, there seems no reason why a modest extension should have any impact on the range of other factors identified by the Council as being the consequence of high student or other non-family accommodation, including anti-social behaviour, problems with parking, waste management or the absence of residents outside term time. 8. I also understand that the proposal before me is identical to that granted permission in 20151. The Council’s officer report provides no indication of any change in circumstance that should have led it to a different decision. The local policy context is the same now as it was when the previous decision was made. While the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in July 2018, there is nothing in the paragraphs referred to which would suggest extensions to HMOs are unacceptable in principle. 9. Notwithstanding the fact the development would not alter the mix of housing, there is also nothing in the evidence which suggests the proportion of HMOs or student accommodation in the area has increased since the original permission was granted. As little appears to have changed in the intervening period, the previous permission is an important material consideration which adds weight to my view that the development is acceptable. 10. In conclusion on this matter, I am satisfied that the development would not result in any harm to the existing balance of family and non-family homes in the area, neither would it cause or exacerbate any of the social or environmental impacts of a high proportion of HMOs that have been identified. Furthermore, the development would not have any material impact on the Council’s aspirations to promote more family housing in this area. Accordingly, 1 15/00609/PFUL3 Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/18/3216485 3 there would be no conflict with Policy 8 of the Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategy (CS)(2014), saved policies ST1 and H6 of the Nottingham Local Plan (LP)(2005) or ‘The Building Balanced Communities’ Supplementary Planning Document (2007) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure the creation and maintenance of a balanced community. 11. There would also be no conflict with paragraphs 8b, 60, 61 and 127f of the Framework which seek, amongst other things, to ensure housing meets the needs of all groups of people, creates strong, healthy and vibrant communities and that development does not undermine quality of life, community cohesion and resilience. Other matters 12. I have already concluded that the development would not lead to harm with regard to the use of the building as a HMO. I note that the Council also raised no concerns in terms of the design of the extension or its effect on privacy, outlook or light. I have seen nothing that would lead me to a different conclusion on these matters. There are therefore no material considerations that would lead me to alter my conclusions. Conditions 13. I have considered the suggested conditions from the Council in accordance with national Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in matching materials, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, and taking all relevant matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. S J Lee INSPECTOR