Appeal 6001940

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal has been accompanied by a set of amended plans. These have been provided in response to one of the reasons given for refusal. Crucially, these plans were not before the Council at the application stage of this proposal. I cannot be assured that this submission has been reviewed by all parties with an interest in this appeal.

This is tantamount to the submission of new information. The Planning Inspectorate Appeals’ Procedure Guide makes it clear in chapter 16 that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. I have not therefore considered this new information in this appeal as it would prejudice the Council, its decision and any interested parties. I have judged the appeal on the plans which the Council made its decision on.

The main issues are: • whether the development would lead to an overconcentration of Houses in [name] (HMO) properties; • the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to light and outlook; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of the development, with regard to light, outlook and movement; and, • the effect of the proposed development on vehicle parking and waste management.

In any application, the application form sets out what has been applied for through the submitted description of proposed works. In this case, the application form states that the proposed works include an extension to the rear, a single storey side extension and a change to the roof design. There is no reference to a HMO development in this description of development.

I am cognisant that the proposed plans indicate that the property would increase its overall number of bed spaces from 5 to 6. Policy HO6 of the Nottingham City Council Local Plan Part 2 2020 (LP2) notes that the extension or alteration of existing HMOs that increase the number of bed spaces will only be granted where it does not lead to a conflict with Policies HO1 and HO2. These policies seek to protect family dwellings and ensure an appropriate housing mix. Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Borough Gedling Borough Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan 2014 (LP1) notes that there is a need to redress the housing mix within areas of HMO concentration. The Council note that the appeal site is in a location where the proportion of HMO properties sits at approximately 30%. This represents a significant concentration of this property type.

The evidence before me indicates that a Certificate of Lawfulness was certified on 23 July 2025. The first schedule describes the use of the land as a HMO, within Use Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). Furthermore, this certificate notes that this use was lawful, on the specified date and only applies to the extent of the use as described in that first schedule. In following the granting of this Certificate of Lawfulness, this confirms that the property is in use as a C4 dwelling, otherwise known as a HMO property.

I refer to what has and what has not been applied for in the description of development. There is no application before me which requests a change of use to a larger HMO property. Therefore, the property is limited by its lawful use as a C4 Use Class property. It follows that within this use class, which has been deemed lawful by the granting of a Certificate of Lawfulness, that the property is permitted to be occupied by 6 residents. [name] therefore note the restrictions of Policy HO6, the property would continue to operate within this use class, which it is permitted to do so. The Council also add that any further intensification beyond 6 individuals would result the appeal property falling into a different use class. This would require a material change of use. The Certificate of Lawfulness also notes that any use which is materially different from that described may render the owner or occupier liable to enforcement action.

It is important to recognise that the proposed extensions would allow for an expansion of the number of bed spaces from 5 to 6 and therefore, there would be conflict with Policy HO6 of the LP. However, the provisions of the [name] order do permit for this number of residents to occupy this building. The development proposal would not create a HMO property beyond its permitted and most importantly, lawful use.

To conclude, the proposed development would not strictly accord with Policies HO1, HO2 and HO6 of the LP2 or Policy 8 of the LP1. However, I am cognisant of the lawful use of the building, of which the appeal property is permitted to operate within the parameters of as a lawful HMO property. I therefore find that the proposed development would not lead to an overconcentration of HMOs, further beyond what has been permitted within the area.

The proposed development includes an extension at a two-storey height, along the boundary, to the rear of the appeal property. No. 17, the adjacent property, has also developed along the boundary. The extensions here include a two-storey side extension along the boundary at a similar height, depth and position to the appeal property, with a single storey extension to the rear. The proposed two-storey extension would extend to a similar depth of the single storey extension found at No. 17.

The proposed development, by virtue of its position and depth, would result in the upper‐floor window of No. 17 being significantly enclosed. The extension would introduce a substantial two‐storey brick elevation along the shared boundary, creating an increased sense of enclosure for the neighbouring occupiers and adversely affecting their outlook.

However, due to the relative orientation of the two properties, the position of the proposed extension, and the path of the sun at this location, the level of daylight received by this neighbouring room would not be materially altered. The relationship between the extension and the affected window is such that any reduction in light would be negligible. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact with respect to light.

The appellant refers to an annotation on the block plan, asserting that it demonstrates compliance with the industry‐standard 45‐degree rule. However, the fundamental flaw in this assessment is that the test has been applied from the end of the single‐storey rear extension at No. 17, rather than from the position of the relevant first‐floor rear window. This upper‐floor window is located significantly further back than the point used in the appellant’s analysis.

I am not persuaded that the inclusion of a ‘dog‐leg’ design within the proposal sufficiently mitigates the impact on outlook. The combined massing of the extensions along the boundary, at a full two‐storey height, would still present a dominant and enclosing form. As such, the proposal would continue to exert an undue visual presence when experienced from the neighbouring property.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policy 10 of the LP1 and Policy DE1 of the LP2. Policy 10 seeks for development proposals to appropriately consider the impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents, with particular regard had to outlook. Living conditions of the occupiers of [site address]

My attention is now drawn to the resultant effects of the scheme upon the occupants of No. 19. The proposed development would incorporate an area annotated as a ‘relax room’ to its ground floor. This room would fail to offer its residents any outlook or natural light, due to its absence of a window to it.

It is asserted that the room has been intentionally designed in this manner to meet the specific needs of certain students. It is further stated that it will include padded walls and flooring to ensure comfort and safety, along with an adjoining room for care workers. [name] appreciate the appellant’s concern for student welfare and safety, there is no convincing evidence before me to suggest that denying occupants access to natural light or any form of outlook is an appropriate or effective method of meeting those needs. Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that individuals with such specific requirements currently reside, or are expected to reside, at the property. Even if such evidence were available, students would still be able to receive natural light and benefit from an outlook elsewhere within the property.

It is further suggested that the room could be utilised to function as a music or dance room. I am not convinced that owing to its relatively limited size, that this room could realistically accommodate someone with a desire to dance more than a few paces. As a padded room, it would severely restrict the type of dance that could be undertaken. With regard to those with a passion for music, I acknowledge that the room is of a size that would allow for certain instruments to be used. However, I am also mindful of the typical behaviour of HMO occupants, who generally pursue such hobbies within their own rooms, away from communal areas unless invited to do so.

I therefore question the benefit of singling out this particular room to be fitted with padded walls and flooring, especially when doing so may compromise the everyday living experience of other occupants who are either not likely to share these needs or have a specific requirement for a music or dance room, but may wish to use it as a space to relax through watching television whilst being sat on a sofa, as is common in most households.

The proposed development would incorporate a kitchen on the ground floor. This room would be served by a single window located at the rear of the property. Owing to the room’s considerable length, the level of natural light reaching the kitchen area would be severely limited. This would result in a dark and artificially lit environment within this part of the property, to the detriment of the living conditions of its occupants.

The occupants of HMO properties tend to operate differently from those in typical family homes. They generally live independently of one another, sharing communal areas such as kitchens, living rooms, bathrooms and garden spaces. As such, these shared spaces form an important part of the overall living environment. Two bedrooms are proposed on the ground floor of No. 19. Unlike the bedrooms on the upper floors, these rooms would not benefit from individual bathroom facilities. Consequently, their occupants would be required to pass through the kitchen area to access the bathroom or shower. This would necessitate residents, as well as any other occupants seeking to use the kitchen, to navigate a tight and constrained corridor at the entry point to the proposed kitchen space, before turning within a limited area to reach the bathroom. This arrangement would not provide convenient circulation throughout the building, nor would it result in an efficient or functional room layout.

To conclude, the proposed development would fail to provide an appropriate and reasonable standard of accommodation for its occupants. Rooms within the building would not be provided with natural light, outlook or an efficient room layout. As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policy 10 of the LP1 and Policy DE1 of the LP2. Collectively, these policies seek for development to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for its occupants, with specific regard made to light, outlook and whether convenient and efficient room layouts.

In its current configuration, [site address] contains a front driveway and an open-sided garage. During my site visit, I observed that the appeal site could accommodate approximately 5 vehicles from the front through to the rear of the plot, which aligns with the number of occupants associated with the existing use. However, this arrangement is not optimal, as several vehicles would need to be parked in a linear formation, resulting in inconvenient manoeuvring to allow one vehicle to exit from behind another.

The proposed extension would occupy the area currently functioning as an open garage, thereby significantly reducing the existing parking provision. The appellant contends that 3 parking spaces could still be provided following the removal of the front boundary wall, which had been undertaken at the time of my site visit.

Policy TR1 of the LP2 states that an appropriate level of parking provision will be sought. For properties in C4 use, such as the appeal property, the policy indicates that parking requirements should be agreed in consultation with the planning and highway authorities. No such requirement has been provided in the evidence before me, nor has any consultation response been submitted to clarify the expected provision. I have therefore applied my planning judgment in reaching a conclusion on this matter.

The proposed development would allow the property to be occupied by 6 individual adults, each leading separate lives and therefore generating patterns of movement distinct from those of a typical family household. It is reasonable to expect that each occupier would have their own transportation needs and arrangements. The appeal site is situated within an accessible part of Nottingham and, notably, in close proximity to the University of Nottingham. Given the appellant’s emphasis on the property being used for student accommodation, it is likely that future occupants would be associated with the University. In this context, it is reasonable to conclude that a proportion of residents would travel on foot, by bicycle, or by utilising public transport.

However, the proposed development, and the lawful use of the building, would allow it to be occupied by 6 individuals. Although the appeal site is located close to the University of Nottingham, it cannot be assumed that all 6 occupants would travel solely to this destination. Some may need to travel further afield for work, study, or other commitments. In the absence of any defined policy requirement, and applying my planning judgment, the number of occupants would generate a level of parking demand that would exceed the approximate provision available on site. The proposed development would therefore fail to provide an appropriate level of vehicle parking. This shortfall would be likely to encourage residents to park opportunistically within the surrounding streets.

The appellant states that, in response to concerns regarding parking demand, the number of occupants within the property would remain unchanged, with no increase in overall occupancy. However, I have reservations about this assertion, given that the proposed plans include an additional bedroom and that the appellant’s final comments refer to a maximum of 6 occupants, not the 5 which would be accommodated in its existing form. It is further suggested that, should additional parking be required, residents could apply for parking permits. No evidence has been provided regarding the number of permits available per property. Consequently, there is no certainty that permits could be secured to meet the needs of the number of residents who would be permitted to occupy the appeal site were the appeal to be allowed.

My attention now turns to matters relating to waste management. The proposed development would remove any opportunity for external access to the rear of the appeal site. Consequently, refuse and recycling bins would need to be stored at the front of the property. The appeal submissions do not include any substantive evidence of a waste management strategy appropriate for the number of occupants proposed. In the absence of such information, it is reasonable to conclude that the volume of waste generated by six individuals would likely lead to overspill and unmanaged waste, which would, in turn, detract from the character and appearance of [address].

The appellant contends that the proposal includes the installation of a garden bin store capable of accommodating 3 bins. However, no detailed plans or specifications for this installation have been provided. In any event, there is no convincing evidence before me to demonstrate that such a facility would constitute an appropriate or sufficient mechanism for managing the volume of waste generated by 6 occupants.

To conclude, the proposed development would result in an arrangement that fails to provide an appropriate level of vehicle parking or waste management for the number of occupants it would permit. It would therefore conflict with Policy 10 of LP1 and Policies HO6, DE1, IN2 and TR1 of LP2. Taken together, these policies require development to be designed to create attractive and well-functioning environments, to incorporate measures that mitigate the adverse impacts of development, and to ensure that parking demand is managed effectively.

For the reasons given above and taking all material considerations into account, the appeal should be dismissed.