Appeal 6005004

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant [name] against Nottingham City Council, and this is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for family accommodation; and • whether the proposed development would result in acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise.

Policy 8 of the [name] Part 1 Local Plan (September 2014) (the CS) sets out the overarching approach to residential development across the city and the neighbouring boroughs. It states that residential development should maintain, provide and contribute to a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes in order to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Particular emphasis is placed on providing family housing to meet [name] and [name] objectives.

Policy HO1 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 (January 2020) (the LP) also supports the provision and retention of family housing in the city. Supporting text identifies such housing as typically no more than three storeys, with private enclosed gardens and at least three bedrooms, two of which should be capable of double occupancy. Policy HO2 of the LP also seeks to safeguard dwellinghouses (use class C3) suitable for family occupation, introducing a presumption against their subdivision, unless certain criteria apply.

Of particular relevance to this appeal are criteria (c) and (f) of Policy HO2 which permit the loss of family housing, where local evidence of housing need and demand indicate that an alternative mix of housing is appropriate; or the property is no longer suitable for family occupation, in which case, replacement with new family accommodation is the preferred approach unless other criteria are satisfied.

The appeal property is a 3-storey, mid-terrace dwelling positioned directly alongside the pavement and including a small but usable rear yard. Each of the 3 bedrooms appear capable of accommodating double beds. The appeal property is located within a predominantly residential area, opposite a primary school and church, and fronts onto a relatively quiet urban street. It is suitable for occupation by a family and is therefore an established family dwelling of the type that the development plan seeks to retain.

The proposed flats would each have one bedroom and therefore neither unit would comprise family accommodation. Therefore, the proposal would result in the loss of family accommodation which would not be compensated by the proposed flats.

The evidence underpinning Policy 8 of the CS indicates that the Council’s area contains a comparatively low proportion of family housing relative to other [name] authorities and England. This shortfall contributes to the continued out-migration of families. Concurrent growth in student households and houses in multiple occupation (HMO’s) has also altered the character of some neighbourhoods. Accordingly, the delivery of housing that is both suitable and attractive to families is identified by the Council as a key priority.

The appellant contends that the Council’s NOMAD mapping system indicates that family housing remains the predominant form in the area, and that the Dales Census Area profile suggests only a very small proportion of residents live in converted or shared accommodation. On this basis, the appellant argues that there is no evidence of a proliferation of flats and HMO’s or an unbalanced community. However, this does not demonstrate an alternative mix of housing is appropriate, within the context of the housing need evidence which identifies a shortfall in accommodation suitable for families.

The appellant refers to 2 appeal decisions in the Council’s area. In appeal reference APP/Q3060/W/21/3284209, the proposal was accompanied by evidence that it would contribute positively to supporting a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community. In appeal reference APP/Q3060/W/22/3296114, the dwelling was found to be less than suitable as a family home, given its siting on a busy main road and constrained amenity space, and no harm to the local housing mix was identified. However, the circumstances of these appeals are not directly comparable to the scheme before me, for the reasons set out above, fails to demonstrate compliance with the criteria Policy HO2 so as to justify a net loss of family housing.

Consequently, I conclude that the appeal proposal would result in the loss of a dwelling suitable for family accommodation. As such it would conflict with Policy 8 of the CS and Policies HO1 and HO2 of the LP, as set out above.

The proposal comprises a ground floor flat and a further flat across the upper 2 floors. This arrangement would introduce a bedroom at ground floor level adjacent to a likely living space in the neighbouring property. At first floor level, the proposed layout would include a living room and kitchen, whereas adjacent properties would typically have bedrooms at this level. The juxtaposition of these differing uses would create the potential for noise disturbance, including from voices, music, television, and domestic appliances.

[name] acknowledge that residential uses are generally compatible, and the function of rooms can change without the need for any permission, the internal arrangement of the accommodation proposed in this instance is a material consideration. The proposal fails to demonstrate the proposed layout would not expose occupants to unacceptable levels of noise disturbance. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the proposal would provide a suitable standard of living accommodation for future occupiers and would not harmfully erode the living conditions of neighbours.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers and neighbouring residents, with regard to noise. This would therefore conflict with Policy 10 of the CS and Policies DE1 and IN2 of the LP which together seek to safeguard amenity.

I acknowledge that the Council has not raised concerns in respect of character and appearance, intensification, the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to internal floorspace, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light or overlooking, highway safety or flood risk. However, the absence of harm in respect of these matters is a neutral factor which does not outweigh the harms identified above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.