Agenda item

Change of use from single dwelling house (Use Class C3) to 6 person House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class C4).

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved -    That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee, to allow sufficient time for Members to view the site in person, and for Planning officers to resolve uncertainty over useable amenity space.

Change of use from single dwelling house (Use Class C3) to 6 person House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class C4).

Planning permission was sought for a change of use from a single family dwelling house to a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) to accommodate 6 persons. The addendum sheet was highlighted. Members were informed that, subject to the imposition of conditions including limiting the occupancy to 6 persons, the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to occupants of neighbouring dwellings. In addition, the proposal did not raise any highway safety concerns, and a site supervision condition was imposed to ensure the proposed use did not have adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The development had been amended through discussion which had resulted in increased lounge space, further cooking and preparation facilities, and had identified sufficient on-site car parking. As a result, the proposal would deliver a standard of accommodation suitable for the purpose applied for, and the application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to an additional condition relating to the provision of a crossover to be implemented prior to occupation, and maintained thereafter.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. Concerns highlighted included the potential change of character to the local, family area, the potential for antisocial behaviour due to the nature of the occupants suggested as tenants, parking problems following the proposed increase in occupants within the dwelling, and the suitability of the dwelling for disabled occupants. Antisocial behaviour had previously been seen at the site, following the occupation by a previous tenant, for which the Police had been requested to intervene. Members were informed that many local residents were unhappy with the proposed HMO at the application site.

The applicant addressed the Committee, confirming that significant improvements had been made to the property since purchase, as outlined in the report. Since its purchase, the property had stood empty, with one exception following an approach from the NHS disabled unit to temporarily house a disabled person. Reference was made to previous criminal incidents within and outside the property, and the applicant asserted that these should have no bearing on any decision relating to the future of the property. Members were advised that the applicant would be working with the NHS upon request, potentially to house victims of domestic violence, and that mature and well behaved tenants would be sought. These could include families or students.

Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee as Ward councillor for Brunel, on behalf of local residents objecting to the application. Councillor Mills highlighted the proposed increase in occupants from 3 to 6 persons, without a corresponding increase in bathroom facilities. In addition, the living area per person within the property would be significantly reduced, particularly bedroom sizes, and a lack of privacy for a ground floor occupant was cited, as the ground floor bedroom would be opening directly onto the lounge area. There was no provision outlined within the proposal that would accommodate wheelchair users, and an existing sewerage problem would likely be exacerbated by an increase in occupants. A reduction in amenity would be borne out by parking spaces and bin storage being located very close to ground floor bedroom windows, and there were also health and safety concerns for occupants leaving the property. Antisocial behaviour had been seen at the property previously, and there were concerns that potentially volatile tenants could see such behaviour return. The increase in occupants would also cause parking issues, including the likely parking on yellow lines.

Members considered the points raised, and sought clarity on the potential change of character, antisocial behaviour, parking issues, room sizes, provision for wheelchair users, privacy of downstairs occupants, and amenity space.

Members were informed that there were no external changes to the location, and it was not considered that the application would have a detrimental impact on the area's character. With regard to amenity space, privacy, and parking, the proposal met the Council's guidance on minimum standards for a 6 person dwelling. Amenity space would likely have been calculated to exclude the parking spaces; therefore all amenity space was 'useable' space. The front garden was considered to be 'private', whilst the outbuilding seen on the plans would not have been included in the calculations, and conditions were set out to restrict the use of this space.

Gates and walls would ensure ground floor occupant privacy, and whilst parking spaces were located close to some ground floor windows, other windows opened onto the garden space. It was suggested that an extension of the existing crossover, to the adjoining property's crossover, would likely be required to better accommodate resident vehicles.

Members were unconvinced that the amenity space had been calculated correctly, and that the front garden would provide a sufficient level of privacy for occupants. For this reason it was moved that the application be deferred to allow Members to visit the site, and for the planning officers to resolve the uncertainty over the calculations of amenity space. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

Resolved -    That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee, to allow sufficient time for Members to view the site in person, and for Planning officers to resolve uncertainty over useable amenity space.