Appeal 6003664

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted amended plans at the appeal stage. The amendments include the addition of kitchenette facilities in several of the bedrooms, the increase in size of the communal dining room and alterations to the layout of Bedroom 2.

The appeal process is not intended to be an opportunity to evolve a scheme, and I am mindful of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England: For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (the Procedural Guide). Considering the description of the development and the main issue of the appeal, these amendments amount to a fundamental change. This could also cause procedural unfairness resulting in prejudice to interested parties by depriving those who should have been consulted on the change the opportunity to comment. As such I do not accept the amended plans submitted as part of the appeal, and therefore I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted at the application stage.

Consequently, I have not addressed arguments raised by the appellant, the Council and other interested parties that relate to the amended plans, as they are not determinative in the appeal. This includes the case law highlighted in the appellant’s final comments which constitutes new evidence at this stage of the appeal; therefore, I cannot accept this on this count also.

I appreciate the validation dispute between the parties at the application stage, however there are procedures available to resolve such disputes. It is not the place of this appeal to evolve the scheme from that determined at the application stage.

The main issue of the appeal is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular reference to the provision of communal kitchen and dining facilities.

The appeal submission indicates the property already operates lawfully as a 6- bedroom house in multiple occupancy (HMO); therefore, the appeal is essentially for one additional bedroom and internal amendments to accommodate this. The proposed plans forming part of the original application has “cooking facilities removed” annotated on 3 of the bedrooms.

[name]: Amenities & Space on HMO’s (DASH) is a minimum space standard for HMO’s that is utilised by the Council.

The consultation response from Environmental Health states the property is suitable for 7 bedrooms and 7 persons but advises awareness of the amenities standard requirements for the shared kitchen. However, the proposed kitchen and dining space would be below the recommended minimum space requirements taken from DASH for 7 bedrooms. I appreciate DASH does not form part of the development plan; however, it does provide a guide of the minimum expectations of facilities for HMOs, and no alternative has been presented to me.

Considering the space within the kitchen it would not be feasible that sufficient cooking facilities could be provided for more than 2 individuals to prepare food at any one time. The dining space would also be insufficient to seat more than 4 individuals without feeling cramped. Additionally, as Bedroom 2 would be accessed beyond the relatively narrow dining room this would be unpractical if the dining room is busy. As such considering the building would potentially be occupied by 7 different households it would not take much for the communal kitchen and dining facilities to become oversubscribed.

I conclude the insufficient provision of communal kitchen and dining facilities would result in harm to the occupants’ living conditions. This would be in conflict with Policy H12 – Quality and Design of the Erewash Borough Saved Policies Document 2008, which requires amongst other things that proposals “provide adequate amenity space”.

In support of the proposal, I have been referred to several appeals for HMOs. These are though of limited relevance as I cannot accept the amended plans submitted in consideration of the Procedural Guide.

It has been highlighted in favour of the appeal that there are no objections in relation to character and appearance, neighbouring living conditions and highway safety, however a lack of harm in these respects is a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal. I appreciate the appeal site is well located for access to services and facilities and has a relatively large rear garden, but this would not mitigate the harm to future occupants living conditions through insufficient cooking and dining facilities within their residential accommodation. I also acknowledge the role HMOs play in providing lower cost accommodation; however, affordability should not be accompanied with an unacceptable standard of living conditions.

In support of the appeal the appellant has raised that that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate sufficient housing land supply, but they have not substantiated this. The Council does not reference housing land supply within their submissions. Though the proposal would include provision of an additional bedroom, there would be no NET increase to the Council’s housing stock. Therefore, the proposals contribution to housing supply would be limited. Housing supply should also not come at the expense of a reduced standard of living conditions. Therefore, even if paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework was engaged, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no raised material considerations that outweigh that conflict. For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed.