# 60 Langdale Road, Nottingham (subdivision of family house)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Craddock
- **Authority:** Nottingham (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010508
- **Application reference:** 25/01876/PFUL3
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Subdivision of a three-bedroom semi-detached house into a two-bedroom house and a one-bedroom flat
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(i), S4
- **Development plan policies:** Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies 2014 Policy 8, Nottingham Land and Planning Policies DPD 2020 HO1, HO2
- **Main issues:** loss of family housing
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, family-housing-loss, plan-led, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
Splitting a three-bedroom semi in Nottingham into a two-bed house and a one-bed flat. The loss of a family home conflicted with local policies protecting family housing, and there was no evidence of need for smaller units. The inspector treated this as a safeguarding case under S4(2) and gave the conflict substantial weight, drawing on HO7's evidenced-need wording. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Need for small units.** "I have been provided with no substantive evidence to demonstrate that there is an unmet need for smaller units sufficient to justify the loss of a family dwelling" (DL ¶7).
- **S4(2) trigger.** "One such circumstance where the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects includes the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses in the development plan." (DL ¶12).
- **Weight.** "Accordingly, I attach substantial weight to the conflict with Policy 8 of the ACS and Policies HO1 and HO2 of the LAPP." (DL ¶13).

## Planning balance
S4: "I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect" (DL ¶14). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶15).

## What made the difference
The plan's family-housing protection, backed by the evidence base showing a shortage of family homes, and no counter-evidence of need for smaller units.

## Transferable points
- A development-plan policy protecting family houses was treated as "safeguarding of buildings for particular uses" under S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶12).
- HO7's "evidenced accommodation needs" can cut against a scheme that removes the type of home the evidence says is needed (DL ¶13).

## Policy findings
- **S4(2)(a)(i): fail.** letter reads the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses in the development plan as covering the plan's protection of family housing (HO2) (DL 12)
- **HO7: harm (substantial weight).** HO7 evidenced-need wording used to give substantial weight to the conflict with the family-housing policies, given the evidenced shortage of family homes (DL 13)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14)

## Key facts
- No evidence of unmet need for smaller units (DL 7)
- NDSS, amenity space and parking all compliant (DL 10)
- Local HO1/HO2 are LAPP policies, not Framework HO1

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010508
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6817aa6e-1d87-4f10-9c58-8444ab42df8e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010508.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.