Single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010201 9 Arthur Street, Nottingham NG7 4DW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Chris Georgiou against the decision of Nottingham City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00748/PFUL3. • The development proposed is a single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear extension at 9 Arthur Street, Nottingham NG7 4DW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00748/PFUL3, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Location Plan; Revised Block Plan; 111/5A; 111/3C; 111/4C. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the objective of maintaining balanced and sustainable communities and upon the living conditions of local residents, having regard to the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a terraced dwelling which is lawfully occupied as a small HMO within Use Class C4. The Council raises no objection to the design of the proposed rear extension, nor its effect upon neighbouring living conditions in terms of outlook, daylight, sunlight or privacy. I have no reason to reach a different view in regard to those matters. The Council's concerns relate solely to the consequences it considers might arise from a potential intensification of the HMO use. 4. Policy 8 of the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan (2014) (the ACS) and Policies HO1, HO2 and HO6 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document: Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (the LAPP) seek, amongst other things, to maintain balanced and sustainable communities and avoid harmful concentrations of HMOs. The Council's evidence indicates that the appeal site lies within an area where HMOs already exceed the threshold identified by the development plan as representing a significant concentration. Appeal Decision 6010201 2 5. The proposal would provide an enlarged open plan kitchen and dining area. It does not include the creation of an additional bedroom and does not expressly seek to increase the number of occupiers of the property. The Council's concern is that the extension could render an existing communal sitting room surplus to requirements and that this room could subsequently be used as an additional bedroom, thereby increasing occupancy. 6. My determination of the appeal must be based upon the development proposed and the likely consequences of that development. In this case, there is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that the existing communal room would cease to function as communal accommodation or that its conversion into a bedroom would inevitably follow from the construction of the extension. The enlarged kitchen and dining area would not necessarily serve the same function as a separate communal living room. Such spaces can reasonably be expected to perform different roles within a shared house, with a living room providing opportunities for relaxation and social interaction away from the activity associated with cooking and dining. The appellant explains that the purpose of the proposal is to improve the existing communal facilities by providing a larger kitchen and dining space whilst retaining the existing sitting room. That explanation is plausible given the size and layout of the property, and I have been provided with no substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise. 7. The Council's case therefore relies upon a series of assumptions regarding how the extended property may be occupied at some point in the future. However, the proposal itself would not increase the number of bedrooms and there is no compelling evidence before me that it would directly result in an increase in occupiers. Consequently, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would result in, or facilitate a material intensification of the lawful HMO use that would undermine the objective of maintaining balanced and sustainable communities. I therefore find no conflict with Policy 8 of the ACS or Policies HO1, HO2 and HO6 of the LAPP. 8. For similar reasons, I do not consider the Council's concerns regarding the effect on neighbours’ living conditions to be substantiated. The Council accepts that the extension itself would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring occupiers. Its concerns regarding noise, disturbance, waste generation and other associated effects depend upon a future increase in occupancy that is not part of the proposal before me, and for the reasons already given, has not been demonstrated to be a likely consequence of the development. I therefore find that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on living conditions in the area and would accord with Policy 10 of the ACS and Policy DE1 of the LAPP. Other Matters 9. The appeal site lies within the Arboretum Conservation Area (ACA). The extension would be located to the rear of the property and would have limited visibility in public views. The Council did not raise any concerns regarding the impact of the development on the significance of this designated heritage asset. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the ACA and would satisfy the relevant development plan policies concerning heritage assets. Appeal Decision 6010201 3 Conditions 10. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. The standard time-limit and approved plans conditions are imposed to provide certainty. However, a matching materials condition is not necessary as this is already specified on the approved plans. No further conditions were suggested by the Council. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed. A Caines INSPECTOR