Agenda item

Change of use from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to house of multiple occupancy (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Change of use from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to house of multiple occupancy (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and confirmed that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the conversion of an end of terrace house in a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The main issues for Members to consider were confirmed as the principle of use, the quality of accommodation provided, the impact on adjoining residents, and the provision of parking.

Regarding principle of use, the property fell within an area in which the Council had applied an article 4 direction restricting permitted development rights to convert properties to multiple occupation. In addition, the Council's HM1 policy supported a threshold approach and stated that there should be at least 15% of properties at neighbourhood level, when considering properties in a street length. Within 100m of the application site, only 1 HMO was known to exist, and within the whole street of 163 houses, there were 3 others. Thus, officers confirmed that the conversion of this property to an HMO would not breach the 15% threshold. However, paragraph 3.5 of the Council's supplementary planning guidance required that such properties should have a minimum gross floor area of 120sqm before they could be considered for conversion. In this instance the floor area, including all extensions, totalled 94sqm which fell below the required minimum, and was therefore deemed unsuitable for this form of accommodation.

In terms of quality of accommodation, all of the rooms complied with the Council's supplementary planning guidance on room sizes, communal facilities and amenity space. However, the plans showed that the proposed communal kitchen shared a party wall with the adjoining property, and thus could have an adverse impact on the residents of that property by way of noise and disturbance. Given the size and separation of the rooms, there was the potential for the property to house up to 8 occupants, and the impact on neighbours, including vehicle movements, noise and disturbance, was considered to be greater than if the property were to be occupied by even a large family.

Regarding parking, the Council required provision of 1 space for every 2 bedrooms. The plans submitted only made provision for 2 parking spaces while retaining access for pedestrians, and so the parking provision was deemed to be unacceptable. For the above reasons the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, highlighting that the property was unsuitable for an HMO for a variety of reasons, including the small size of the bedrooms and the lack of amenity space. In addition, instances of anti social behaviour were highlighted, including noise disturbances, property damage, confrontations with residents and refuse left in the street. To address these issues Hillingdon's ASBIT team had been involved, as had the Police, though issues remained. For these reasons, the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

Members sought further information on the kind of property damage the petitioner was referring to. The petitioner asserted that the damage was caused by youths playing football in the road. The petitioner went on to highlight that the property had been in use by occupants placed by the social care services.

Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioner and the residents of Collingwood Road. Councillor Mills asserted that, though the instances of anti social behaviour did not constitute material planning considerations, they were testament to the property's unsuitability to be an HMO. Councillor Mills went on to confirm that the property was currently being used as an HMO, for which they had no permission, and that the site's layout was not sufficient for a large number of occupants. If approved, the HMO would have scope to house up to 8 people, more than would be expected of a large family, and this would have an impact on their own living conditions, as well as the quality of life of nearby residents and those in adjoining properties, due to noise and disturbance. On this basis, the Committee was asked to refuse the application.

Members sought clarity on the whether the size of the bedrooms in the property met the minimum size requirements set out in the relevant guidance. Officers confirmed that though small, the rooms did meet the minimum size requirements.

Members shared the concerns raised, including the size of the rooms and the lack of amenity space. The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.