# 38 Highfield Road, Nottingham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Fulford
- **Authority:** Nottingham (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010946
- **Application reference:** 26/00156/PFUL3
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Rear extensions and change of use of dwelling (C3) to 7-bed HMO (sui generis)
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO1
- **Development plan policies:** Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 2014 Policy 8, Policy 10, Land and Planning Policies DPD 2020 HO1, HO2, HO6, DE1, DE2, IN2
- **Main issues:** housing mix and balanced community, living conditions
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, balanced-community, plan-making-policy-as-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
The appeal sought to convert a detached family house near the University of Nottingham to a 7-bed HMO. The output area was already 65% HMO or student housing. The appeal was dismissed on housing mix and balanced community grounds. The council's noise and parking objections failed for lack of site-specific evidence. In the S4 balance, the inspector treated the loss of a family dwelling as harm "contrary to Policy HO1 of the Framework". That harm got significant weight and substantially outweighed the limited benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The relevant parts of the Framework were amended, so the parties were consulted (DL ¶2).
- **Housing mix: CONFLICT with the plan.** "a concentration of 65% is very significantly beyond the 10% threshold ... over half of all dwellings in the area being HMO/student accommodation is strongly suggestive of an overconcentration" (DL ¶9).
- **Living conditions: PASS.** "it does not follow from this that all HMOs are occupied by disruptive tenants ... Specific evidence of harm should be adduced" (DL ¶18). Tram, bus and cycle access meant parking demand would not be harmful (DL ¶22).

## Planning balance
This was the S4 balance (DL ¶27-28). "The proposal would provide additional specialist residential accommodation in accordance with Policies HO7 and HO9 ... accords with Policy TR3 ... more effective use of the existing building in accordance with Policy L2 ... only limited weight is attached to these benefits" (DL ¶29). "The proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling, for which there is an evidenced need. This is contrary to Policy HO1 of the Framework. Given the high level of need for family housing, I attach significant weight to this harm" (DL ¶30). "Overall, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31).

## What made the difference
The very high existing HMO concentration (65%) and the evidence of family housing need. The Framework hook for the harm was HO1, a plan-making policy on assessing need, rather than one of the decision-making policies S4(1) refers to. Other inspectors have said plan-making policies cannot ground a refusal (PINS-6009486), so this reasoning is open to challenge. The case still shows HMO concentration policies surviving the S4 presumption.

## Transferable points
- Local HMO concentration thresholds remain effective under S4 where the exceedance is large (65% against 10%) (DL ¶9, 31).
- Loss of a family dwelling with evidenced need was given significant weight as harm, framed under HO1 (DL ¶30). The legitimacy of using a plan-making policy this way is contested; compare PINS-6009486.
- A single HMO's HO7/HO9/L2/TR3 benefits get only limited weight (DL ¶29).
- Generic HMO research does not prove amenity harm without site-specific evidence (DL ¶18-19).

## Policy findings
- **S4(1): fail.** limited benefits of one HMO substantially outweighed by loss of a family dwelling in a 65% HMO/student output area (DL 27-31)
- **HO1: harm (significant weight).** loss of a family dwelling for which there is evidenced need treated as contrary to Framework HO1 (DL 30)
- **HO9: benefit (limited weight).** additional specialist accommodation (with HO7, TR3, L2); limited as only one HMO (DL 29)
- **TR3: pass (limited weight).** adjacent to University, bus and tram stops; parking harm not shown (DL 22, 29)
- **P3: pass.** no site-specific evidence of noise or parking harm; generalised HMO research not enough (DL 17-24)

## Key facts
- 65% of dwellings in the output area are HMOs or student accommodation, against a 10% "significant concentration" threshold (DL 9)
- Existing lawful use treated as C3; no Lawful Development Certificate for claimed historic C4 use (DL 3)
- Detached 4-bed house found suitable for family occupation; agent's letter did not show a lack of C3 demand (DL 10-12)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010946
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f5d471a-082e-470e-8aae-34a0e4b4ce27

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010946.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.