Issue - meetings

Change of use from a maximum 6-person HMO (use class C4) to a 6-bed, 10-person HMO (sui generis)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and,

2)    That an additional reason for refusal be given with regard to inadequate provision for waste and refuge storage and collection.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed representation outlining the proposals noting that the application was recommended for refusal based on the five reasons stated in the officer report.

A petition objecting to the application had been received and the lead petitioner had submitted a statement which was read out to the Committee ahead of their deliberations. Key points raised in the statement included:

·       Petitioners had concerns about the HMO property and noted the frequent turnaround of tenants and a history of anti-social behaviour from previous tenants. Petitioners sought to object to the application increasing the 6 person HMO to a 10 person HMO.

·       The increase in tenants would bring about an increase in the issues experienced with the property and would impact on the safety of neighbouring residents.

·       Incidents of noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour were already common and an increase in tenants would result in an increase of these issues.

·       Concerns were raised regarding waste, refuge and litter from the property, which would inevitably increase should the application be granted.

·       A lack of parking provision would put further pressures on local on-street parking and have the potential to increase instances of inconsiderate parking.

The Committee were in agreement that an increase from a 6 person to a 10 person HMO would cause a significant level of harm to neighbours in the form of increased noise and parking pressures. Members were supportive of the five recommended refusal reasons provided by officers and sought to explore a further refusal reason regarding inadequate provision for waste and refuge storage and collection.

The officers recommendation, in addition to the further reason for refusal discussed, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and,

2)    That an additional reason for refusal be given with regard to inadequate provision for waste and refuge storage and collection.