Ground floor side extension to create utility area and shower room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3060/D/19/3228126 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 Nottingham City Council. • The application Ref 19/00499/PFUL3, dated 4 March 2019, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2019. • The development proposed is a ground floor side extension to create utility area and shower room. 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 regard to the effect of the proposal on the character of the area, and • the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with regard to noise, disturbance and on-street parking. Reasons Balanced communities and the character of the area 3. The appeal site contains a detached dwelling which is in use as a seven- bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). This use does not benefit from the required planning approval. The site is within a residential area, with further HMO’s within close proximity, including at No’s 17 and 20. The site is in an area with a high concentration of HMO’s. Consequently, the character of the local area is a mix of family accommodation and commercial let properties. 4. Policy ST1 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan (2005) (LP) seeks to maintain balanced communities. This is on the basis that family housing sustains local communities and supports local schools. Furthermore, the Building Balanced Communities (BBC) SPD1 identifies that a concentration of 1 Nottingham City Council, Building Balanced Communities- Supplementary Planning Guidance (2007) Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/19/3228126 2 student housing can prejudice the creation of balanced communities. The BBC SPD illustrates that the Ward of Dunkirk and Lenton has a very high student population2. This identifies that the concentration of this population attracts social pressures including anti-social behaviour, noise disturbance and impacts on local services. 5. A recent appeal3 on this site was dismissed for a two-storey side extension. The Inspector considered that whilst the proposal would not result in the creation of further bedrooms, it would increase the floor space and raise the potential for additional occupancy to be accommodated. It was determined that the proposal would intensify the use of the HMO and further community imbalance. 6. The local area is subject to a high proportion of multi-let accommodation. This has imbalanced the local community to the disbenefit of family accommodation. The proposal would encourage and reinforce the HMO function of the property which would not promote the provision of a balanced community. 7. Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the character of the area. Subsequently, the proposed extension would be contrary to Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies 2014 (ACS), which seeks development to provide a mix of housing tenures with an emphasis on family housing. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be contrary to Policy ST1 and H6 of the LP, which seek amongst other things, for development to contribute towards the creation of a balanced mix of housing types and promotes student housing where maintaining a balanced community is not prejudiced. The proposal would also be contrary to the BBC SPD which also seeks to maintain balanced communities. Living conditions 8. The dwelling is detached and within a small cul-de-sac of similar properties. The property has a driveway that could accommodate around 4 cars. The cul- de-sac is subject to parking restrictions. The turning head is enclosed by double yellow lines. Based on the limited scale of the proposal, available on- site parking and local parking restrictions I do not consider that parking disturbance would increase as a result of the proposal. 9. However, the increased footprint of the HMO would nevertheless further solidify and reinforce the existing use. This would result in a greater range of facilities and the potential increase in occupants and visitors. Therefore, there would be likely to be some, albeit small, increase in activity around the property as occupants arrive and leave. As such the appellant’s offer of triple glazing would not address this concern. Therefore, due to the proposed increase in the intensification of the use, caused by an upgrading of existing facilities, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents due to increased noise and disturbance. 10. Furthermore, I concur with the previous Inspector who concluded that the intensification would exacerbate noise and disturbance levels, even if only by a limited degree. 2 BBC SPD: Paragraph A2.5 3 Appeal decision reference: APP/Q3060/D/18/325459 Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/19/3228126 3 11. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 10 of the ACS, which seeks development to consider the impact on the amenity of nearby residents. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be contrary to Policy H6 and NE9 of the LP, which seek to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal would also be contrary to the BBC SPD which recognises that resident’s amenity and quality of life can be impaired by the concentration of student accommodation. Other Matters 12. The HMO may well have been in use before the Council made its article 4 direction, but a seven-bedroom HMO requires planning permission in any event. Furthermore, no evidence is before me that indicates that the use is lawful. As such, the timing of when the use commenced has had no direct bearing on this appeal. 13. Although I recognise that the number of bedrooms would be limited by the size of the kitchen and dining area, the regulatory requirements are not in evidence. In any event, my concerns principally relate to the provision of ancillary services that would intensify the existing use. 14. The proposal would be set back from the highway and behind the front building line, as such the design and proposed materials are acceptable. However, an absence of harm in this respect can only be considered as a neutral factor in the planning balance. 15. The rear extension may well be of a scale comparable to extensions for local family occupied housing, although no evidence has been provided to confirm this. However, the property has been subject to substantial intensification with the provision of 7 lettable bedrooms, with 3 at ground floor. Consequently, the intensity of the existing use is not considered as being ‘typical’ or directly comparable to family use. Conclusion 16. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters submitted, the appeal is dismissed. Ben Plenty INSPECTOR