- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Hunter
- Authority
- Kingston upon Hull (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6010376
- Application reference
- 24/01144/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use, first and second floor extensions and external alterations of a former grammar school building to provide 37-bed student accommodation, with an office and store, parking and landscaping
- Homes
- 37
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.16 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- Development plan policies
- Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 (2017) Policy 7, Policy 13, Policy 14, SPD20 Houses in Multiple Occupation 2022
- Main issues
- character and appearance; loss of a community use; mixed and balanced community; living conditions
Summary
Conversion and upward extension of a former school building in Hull to 37 student bedrooms was dismissed on design alone. The inspector found against the Council on the loss of a community use, the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and neighbours' privacy. But the extensions conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification, which engaged the S4(2)(c) refusal trigger and outweighed the benefits.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on how the changes affect their respective cases" (DL ¶3).
- Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT. The extension would create "an illegible form of development that would appear as a top-heavy addition … to the building" (DL ¶9; the break is a page break). Low prominence "is not a reason to justify the poor design quality of the proposed development" (DL ¶11).
- Community use, HC6: held not engaged. "There is no mention of schools within Policy HC6 or within the definition of community facilities, consequently the existing use at the appeal site would not be regarded as a community use for the purpose of the Framework" (DL ¶28). The letter does not refer to the separate Annex B definition of "public service infrastructure", which HC6 also protects.
- Plan weight, Annex A ¶2. Development plan policies "which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in the Framework, such as HLP Policy 13 in this case regarding a school as a community use, should be given very limited weight" (DL ¶28).
- HMO concentration: no conflict. "there is no evidence before me that the proposed development would breach the 50% threshold along the entire street" (DL ¶42).
- Housing weight, HO7. "I attach only modest weight to its provision, and not the substantial weight as advocated within Policy HO7" (DL ¶68).
- L2 airspace. The character harm "significantly limits the weight afforded to that part of the policy in this case" (DL ¶67).
- DP3(3): FAIL. "where there is conflict with this part of the policy, without clear justification (as in this case) the development should be refused" (DL ¶69).
Planning balance
Plan-led, with S4 as a material consideration. S4(2)(c) is paraphrased: "where there is conflict with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused, this is likely to indicate the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶70). Benefits: modest weight to the accommodation, substantial-weight policies CC2, CC3 and L2 acknowledged but discounted because a better designed reuse could deliver them or because of the character harm (DL ¶66–68). The benefits "are not considered to outweigh the conflict with Policy DP3" (DL ¶70).
What made the difference
The design of the extensions. Every other issue went the appellant's way, including a plan-policy conflict on loss of a community use that the inspector set aside under Annex A ¶2. A scheme that reused the building with extensions respecting its symmetry and the adjoining church would probably have succeeded on this reasoning.
Transferable points
- A DP3(1) conflict without clear justification engages S4(2)(c), and outweighs CC2, CC3 and L2 substantial-weight benefits that a better designed scheme could also deliver (DL ¶66, ¶69–70).
- HO7 substantial weight depends on an evidenced need: student accommodation with no demonstrated need, and which the University said was not required, got modest weight despite a 3.16-year supply (DL ¶60, ¶68).
- L2(1)(d) support for airspace development is conditional on street-scene and character tests; harm there "significantly limits" the weight (DL ¶67).
- A whole-street HMO threshold must be measured over the whole street; council sub-area calculations did not show a breach (DL ¶41–42).
- Caution: the letter's reading that schools fall outside HC6 (DL ¶28) does not deal with the Annex B definition of "public service infrastructure", which includes education facilities. It should not be cited for that point without checking the definition.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | flat-roofed first-floor extension, off-centre dormers and render create a top-heavy, discordant building; harm to the building and the immediate area (DL 8-10, 15, 69) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | conflict "without clear justification (as in this case)"; letter calls it "section (2) of Policy DP3" (DL 69) | |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | conflict with a should-be-refused policy indicates benefits are substantially outweighed; benefits do not outweigh the DP3 conflict (DL 70) | |
| HC6 | not-engaged | school use held not to be a community use for the Framework because schools are not mentioned in HC6 or the Annex B definition of "community facilities"; the letter does not address the Annex B definition of "public service infrastructure" (DL 27-29) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | Hull LP Policy 13 held materially inconsistent with HC6 in treating a school as a community use, so very limited weight; HC6 "would outweigh the conflict" (DL 28-29, 65) |
| HE9 | neutral | Newland CA preserved; buildings barely seen from within it; HE4 also cited (DL 12-13) | |
| HE7(2) | neutral | no harm to locally listed 123-125 Cottingham Road (DL 14) | |
| HO9 | accord | limited | management plan condition would address HO9; compliance carries limited weight as no need shown (DL 44, 46, 48, 68) |
| HO7 | benefit | "modest" weight (not in the weight vocabulary): no evidence of need for student accommodation outside the University Quarter, and the University says none is required, so not the substantial weight HO7 advocates (DL 60, 68) | |
| CC2 | benefit | substantial weight to improving energy efficiency of existing buildings noted, but achievable with a better designed scheme (DL 66) | |
| L2(1)(d)(i) | conflict | airspace development must be consistent with the street scene and not harm the building's character; character harm "significantly limits" the L2 weight (DL 67) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | accord | privacy of neighbours on Scholars Drive acceptable; 23.8 m minimum separation (DL 52, 54) | |
| PSED | neutral | neighbours with protected characteristics; refusal on those grounds would not be proportionate (DL 55-59) |
Key facts
- Lawful use taken to be a school (Class F1(a)); no evidence of ten years' continuous non-community use and no lawful development certificate (DL 19)
- Buildings of about 1,400 sq m; appellant's Community Needs Statement had no marketing evidence (DL 23-24)
- Council's supply is 3.16 years (2025 figure) (DL 60)
- The University said the accommodation is not required (DL 60)
- HMO concentration on Cottingham Road not shown to breach the 50% threshold in LP Policy 7, which applies to the whole street; Council's sub-area figures (43%, 47%, 52.9%) did not follow the policy (DL 41-42)
- SPD20 given limited weight because its requirements go beyond LP Policy 7 (DL 33)
- Petition of 332 signatures against the scheme (DL 64)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.