Appeal 6002650

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the creation and maintenance of balanced, sustainable and mixed communities; • the effect of the development on neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions, with particular regard to nuisance, noise and disturbance; and • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk;

Policy HO6 of the [name] and Planning Policies Local Plan Part 2 (LAPP) recognises the important contribution that HMOs make to meeting the city’s accommodation needs but seeks to avoid their significant concentration. The policy expects that the proportion of households in a local Output Area comprising either student accommodation or HMOs should not exceed 10%. The Council states that within the relevant Output Area 44.7% of properties fall into these categories. It further indicates that, when surrounding [name] are taken into account, the average proportion remains above the threshold at 30.6%.

The concentration of HMO and student accommodation uses is not substantially disputed. Rather, the appellant argues that, given the already high concentration, the proposal would not materially alter the prevailing character of the street and that the increase in occupancy from 2 to [address] to harm.

The Council’s Delegated Report refers to a Government publication1 noting that high concentrations of HMOs can result in adverse impacts, including imbalanced and unsustainable communities, with associated pressures on local services and facilities. Whilst it is of some age now, the Council considers that its own experience remains consistent with those findings.

I have no reason to doubt that high concentrations of such uses can have a distorting effect on neighbourhoods and the services they rely upon. I therefore do not accept the argument that continuing to increase concentrations of HMOs and student lettings in this area would somehow benefit the local community by containing any associated issues within a smaller geographical area rather than dispersing them across the city.

Furthermore, Policy 8 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (ACS) makes clear that, within Nottingham City there should be an emphasis on providing family housing. I have not been provided with robust evidence demonstrating that this property is unsuitable for family occupation or, considering the particular need for family accommodation in Nottingham, convincing evidence of a local need for additional HMOs sufficient to outweigh the presumption against a change of use that I have identified.

The scheme would result in the loss of a family home and would contribute to an over‐concentration of HMOs in the local area. Consequently, it would undermine the planning objective of creating and maintaining balanced, sustainable and appropriately mixed communities, and would therefore conflict with [name] HO1 and HO6. It would also conflict with Policy 8 of the ACS which, amongst other things, places an emphasis on family housing in Nottingham City and seeks to ensure a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

As a two-bedroom house, the property could reasonably accommodate a family of three to four people. The appellant proposes to limit occupation to three individuals, and such a restriction could be secured by condition.

HMOs are typically occupied differently from family dwellings, with potential implications for comings and goings, noise, car ownership and rates of turnover. However, with occupation limited to three people—comparable to the likely number within a family house—I am not persuaded that these factors would give rise to material disturbance.

Although the property is an end-terrace with shared party walls, I have no persuasive evidence that activity associated with a three-person HMO would be significantly different from that generated by the existing lawful use. Nor is there any reason to assume that the property would be poorly managed such that regular inspections or maintenance would cause it to fall into disrepair.

The main potential difference would be the level of car ownership, as individual occupants of an HMO are more likely to own a vehicle. However, the property is in a highly accessible location, and although surrounding on‐street parking is controlled by permit, I am not persuaded that the proposal would inconvenience 1 [name]: Housing in [name] and possible planning responses – [name] (2008) local residents by significantly increasing parking pressure. I have not been provided with evidence of existing parking problems in the area, nor has the Highway Authority raised concerns.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the property’s reasonable use as a Class C4 HMO would not give rise to a harmfully adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 16 and [address], with particular regard to nuisance, noise and disturbance. The scheme does not conflict with those parts of ACS Policy 10 and [name] DE1, DE2, HO6 and IN2, insofar as they require proposals to consider the impact of development on nearby residents, with reference to matters such as privacy, odour, noise and nuisance, and on-street parking availability.

The Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning identifies the site as within [name] 3. Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states that development in areas at risk of flooding should only be permitted where it is demonstrated, through an appropriate assessment, that safe access and escape routes can be provided as part of an agreed emergency plan. No Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted, nor is there an emergency plan for occupants, including arrangements for flood warnings or any flood-resistance or resilience measures.

One bedroom would be at ground-floor. Although occupants could move to the first floor during a flood event, the limited landing area provides only restricted refuge space. The use of the building as a dwelling could result in persons sleeping on the ground floor in the absence of an FRA. While a HMO shares some characteristics with a dwelling, occupants of a dwelling would typically have unrestricted access to all upstairs rooms, which is not necessarily the case for a HMO.

While ground-floor levels appear to sit above street level, no predicted flood levels have been provided to allow an assessment of whether the property would be affected in a flood event. The existence of nearby properties using ground-floor rooms for sleeping, or the appellant’s commitment to securing appropriate insurance, does not overcome the deficiency in the evidence.

Accordingly, the evidence before me in this appeal fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is a suitable location for the development with regard to its flood risk. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies 1 and 10 of the ACS and Policies CC3 and DE1 of the LAPP, which, amongst other things, seek to direct development away from areas of highest risk and design responses that are appropriate to a site’s context.

[name] have found no harm in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, the proposal would cause harm by further concentration of HMOs and flood risk. In my view, these are the prevailing considerations and the proposal should be regarded as being in conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the plan.

For the reasons above the appeal is dismissed.