Agenda item

The case officer highlighted the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for a single storey side and rear extension and change of use from dwelling house to large HMO;
2. The application had previously been submitted and had been refused. Amendments were secured during the current application process . On reconsulting the application received 21 objections;
3. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Hulme regarding concerns for design and visual impact, impact on neighbours’ privacy and over-bearing;
4. The proposal retains an open character and building line at the corner location and meets the design requirements of the SPD on Household Extensions;
5. Noise insulation was proposed for all party walls and meets all other HMO SPD requirements;
6. There was not a harmful concentration of HMO’s in the area with approximately 85% houses, 6% multiple occupation and 14% flats;
7. All rooms met HMO licensing standards;
8. There were no policy reasons to refuse the application so it was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions:-

1. The application was compliant on SPD HMO’s and there was therefore little chance of defending at appeal;
2. The demographic of prospective residents was not within the planning remit;
3. There would be 1 person per bedroom as marked on the submitted plans and HMO Licensing would specify this on the licence;
4. The bedroom sizes had been reduced from the previous application but still met HMO licensing space standards;
5. The identity of the applicant was not a planning consideration;
6. National planning guidance had recently been amended to include ‘beautiful buildings’ and officers observed that whilst this was in the eye of the beholder. This application met the design requirements of the Household Extension SPD and was an acceptable design;
7. It was possible to condition that the parking space be retained in perpetuity.

8.   There was a condition requiring a fence to be erected between the adjoining property prior to occupation  and that wording would be added to retain it in perpetuity

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Breckels understood the concerns about the application but as it was policy compliant there was little chance of success at appeal. He asked that second parking space be negotiated and was informed that there was no room for a second space and that Transport Development Management had not believed that the impact on parking was severe enough to refuse it;
2.  It was confirmed that a standard  parking condition could be modified and added to ensure that the existing space was available for use prior to occupation and retained permanently.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation and it was seconded and on being put to the vote it was -

RESOLVED – (6 for, 2 abstentions) That the application be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition as set out below:-

Completion and Maintenance of Car/Vehicle Parking - Shown on Approved Plans

No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or use commenced until the car/vehicle parking area/garage and associated access shown on the approved plans has been completed and thereafter the area shall be kept free of obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development only in perpetuity. Driveways/vehicle parking areas accessed from the adopted highway must be properly consolidated and surfaced, (not loose stone, gravel or grasscrete) and subsequently maintained in good working order at all times thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that there are adequate parking facilities to serve the development constructed to an acceptable standard.