Appeal 6001405

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form indicates that the change of use has already been carried out on the site. Thus, I have considered the appeal on a retrospective basis.

The main issues are the effect of the change of use on i) the housing mix in the area and the creation and maintenance of a balanced community; and ii) the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with respect to noise and disturbance.

Policy 8 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (September 2014) (the ACS) seeks a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes in order to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, with an emphasis on providing family housing, including larger family housing, to address a lower than the national average stock of such accommodation. Point 4 of the policy states that the appropriate mix of housing will be informed by several indicators, including the need to redress the housing mix within areas of concentration of student households and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

This approach is further advocated through Policy HO1 of the Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document (January 2020) (the LAPP). Policy HO2 presumes against the loss of dwellinghouses (Class C3) unless certain criteria are met, one of which is where it is shown that the property is no longer suitable for family occupation. Policy HO6 reinforces the need for proposals to accord with Policies HO1 and HO2, adding among other criteria that consideration will be given to the existing proportion of HMOs and/or student households in the area and whether this amounts to a ‘significant concentration’, which is defined as a concentration exceeding 10%.

The Council argues that where concentrations of HMO uses develop, this can have a distorting effect on neighbourhoods with many residents not having a long-term stake in the community and some service needs of longer-term residents, such as schools, becoming unsustainable. The effects of this in Nottingham have long-term recognition and are addressed through the aforementioned development plan policies and the introduction of an Article 4 Direction in 2012 to manage the change of use from C3 family dwellings to C4 HMOs.

The Council sets out that the concentration of HMO/student housing in this case is 44.7% in the output area within which the appeal site is located, and an average of 30.6% across surrounding output areas. The wording of Policy HO6 that ‘regard will be had’ to the concentration of HMOs does not automatically mean that any exceedance of the 10% figure will mean a proposal is unsuitable. However, a concentration of 44.7% is very significantly beyond the 10% threshold and indicates nearly half of the dwellings within the output area are HMOs/student accommodation, which I understand is a consequence of the site’s proximity to Nottingham University. My observations on site were not conclusive as to obvious visible adverse effects of this HMO concentration, with the possible exception of a significant number of wheelie bins scattered on the footway and in front gardens. Nonetheless, the Council’s evidence is not countered by the appellant and, by any reasonable measure, nearly half of all dwellings in the area being HMO/student accommodation is strongly suggestive of an overconcentration.

The appeal property is a detached, three storey building laid out with a kitchen, living/dining area and bathroom on the ground floor, three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor and two further bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. It has a deep front drive capable of parking two cars in tandem and a rear garden. The Council acknowledges some bedrooms are small but could be reconfigured to meet national floorspace standards. Even without this, the property has ample living space, bathrooms and bedrooms for family occupation, alongside parking and garden space valued by families. I have no evidence to suggest that the appeal property is otherwise unsuitable for use as a single dwelling.

The appellant refers to the proposal fulfilling a need for other forms of residential accommodation under Policy HO2, pointing to two reports1 setting out evidence of significant need for more affordable student housing in the city. However, I concur with the Council that the adopted policy approach is not to proactively address this need through conversions of Class C3 dwellinghouses to additional student accommodation, or to favour provision of student accommodation over other residential uses. Rather, the aforementioned policies seek to strike an appropriate balance between different forms of residential uses, recognising local pressure on the supply of family-sized dwellings from other uses. The policies are flexible in allowing for a certain amount of HMO/shared accommodation and for a judgment to be made on effects where the 10% threshold would be exceeded.

However, in this case, the evidence indicates that the balance of uses has moved very significantly away from owner-occupied dwellings towards shared forms of accommodation, intensifying the aforementioned distorting effect on the balance of the community and risking the viability of local services, such as schools. The more transient nature of HMO occupants further makes neighbourly relationships and community links difficult to foster, undermining social cohesion in the area. 1 Nottingham City Council Student Accommodation update report (Aug 2024) and [name] 2023-2028

On the evidence before me, the appeal scheme exacerbates the imbalance in the housing mix in the area, through the loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation and further exacerbation of an already significant overconcentration of HMOs/shared accommodation in the immediate area. As a result, the development would fail to create or maintain a balanced community or address the shortage of homes for family occupation, and so would conflict with the stated aims of Policy 8 of the ACS and Policies HO1, HO2 and HO6 of the LAPP.

Policies HO6, DE1 and IN2 of the LAPP, and Policy 10 of the ACS all contain requirements to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. The supporting text to Policy HO6 refers to a 2008 Government report2 which found high concentrations of HMOs can lead to negative effects in several areas for existing residents, including anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance, the physical environment and streetscape, parking pressure and crime. That said, it does not follow from this that all HMOs are occupied by disruptive tenants and that harm to neighbouring occupants is inevitable. Specific evidence of harm should be adduced to demonstrate any adverse effects alleged.

The Council points to the aforementioned national level research and concern that a C4 use could result in occupancy of up to six tenants, that would in its view exacerbate these adverse impacts, in particular parking stress. However, the Council does not offer any site-specific evidence of harm in these respects. There is no evidence that the HMO use since it was commenced has drawn complaints from neighbours due to noise, disturbance or the appearance of the site. I also saw no specific issues with the upkeep of the building or its general levels of tidiness compared to neighbouring properties. An HMO is also not guaranteed to be a student household where stereotypical revelry is to be expected. My own observations of the appeal property were that it was occupied by individuals with their own rooms living together in a quiet environment.

I noted five bedrooms at the time of my visit, presumably each with a single occupant. A sixth occupant would not represent a significant increase, with the number still comparable to that possible were a large family to reside in the property as a five-bedroom dwelling. There is simply no substantive evidence that the use as an HMO would be materially more harmful in terms of noise generation or other forms of disturbance. It is also a factor that neighbours will have a tolerance for a certain level of noise given the appeal property is located in an urban area with certain levels of activity throughout the day and into the night.

In respect of parking, I have no evidence of typical levels of car ownership by HMO tenants, but given such accommodation is at the lower end of the market in terms of cost, it is reasonable to consider that ownership levels would be no greater than that of owner/occupiers of single family dwellings. I have no evidence of parking pressure in the area being at unsustainable levels and I noted that non-resident parking is permitted for up to two hours, which suggests availability during the day.

This aside, the appeal site benefits from at least two off-street spaces, and the site is in close proximity to the university and bus stops on [address]. It is also walkable to a number of local facilities. Such accessibility is likely to reduce the overall level of need for a private car by occupants of the HMO. As such, I find 2 [name]: Housing in [name] and possible planning responses - [name] there is no persuasive evidence that the change of use has had, or would have, a materially harmful impact on parking stress in the area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the use of the building as an HMO does not give rise to unacceptable noise or disturbance that would materially harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants and there is no conflict with the stated requirements of Policy 10 of the ACS or Policies DE1, HO6 or IN2 of the LAPP.

The appellant refers to the Council granting him a licence for an HMO at the appeal site, but argues that he was not advised that the site was in an area of HMO concentration and that the Council has not been transparent, or consistent in its approach, resulting in financial loss and administrative burden.

I understand the appellant may feel misled, but it is ultimately the responsibility of any landowner to ensure they understand the requirements of the planning system. The evidence indicates the appellant was made aware of the need for planning permission as this was the reason the HMO licence was only granted for one year. I have no other evidence to indicate the Council deliberately misled the appellant in these respects. Any ongoing dispute the appellant has with the Council’s handling of affairs is a matter for local government accountability, but I am not persuaded that this is a factor which is decisive to my overall conclusions.

This aside, whilst I acknowledge an HMO licence was granted, the licensing regime is separate to the planning system with a different focus and requirements. Compliance with the terms of an HMO licence does not necessarily indicate acceptability in planning terms, nor does it set an expectation that planning permission will be subsequently granted, as all applications are treated on their own merits. I note the appellant’s comments that the HMO has been safely and responsibly managed during its period of licensed operation, with no complaints, enforcement issues, or negative impact on the local community. I have no evidence to suggest otherwise, and I have not found harm above in respect of the effect on neighbours’ living conditions. However, these factors do not alter my findings in respect of the wider concentration of HMOs and the effect of this on the housing mix and maintenance of a balanced community.

The provision of an HMO would provide a social benefit from the potential accommodation for more occupants, including students, for which there is a general and ongoing demand, but this would not overcome the social harm arising from the loss of a family-sized dwellinghouse in circumstances where there is an identified shortfall in provision of such accommodation and policy presumption against its further loss.

I therefore conclude that there are no material considerations in favour of the proposal which would outweigh the harm from the proposal’s failure to create and maintain a balanced community which conflicts with the adopted development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.