Agenda item

Single storey rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

·         That the application was approved subject to agreed conditions.

·         That authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to correct the dimensions in the report to match the applicant's intentions.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application which sought planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension 3.6m deep x 6.6m wide x 3m in height. Officers highlighted the addendum and recommended that the application be approved. It was explained that the property was lawfully in use as an HMO and was situated within an article 4 area which restricted HMOs; however, this HMO had been licensed and registered since 2001 therefore pre-dated the Council's article 4. Hence, for the purposes of determining the application, the property had to be considered a C3 dwelling house rather than an HMO. Members were advised that the proposed size and scale of the rear extension were acceptable and there was a condition in the addendum restricting the number of occupants to six. If the number of occupants were to exceed six, planning permission would be required to change the use from a dwelling house to an HMO. It was confirmed that there was sufficient parking space for three vehicles.

 A representative of the petitioners was not present at the meeting. The applicants addressed the Committee in response to the petition received and confirmed that the property was licensed as an HMO. It was also stated that the proposed extension would be at a distance of 900mm (36 inches) from the closest property. Petitioners had expressed concern regarding the high turnover of tenants; however, the applicants confirmed that they had owned the property for 5 years and had only had 3 groups of tenants living in the property in that time. Members were informed that neighbours had the applicants' contact details and had never complained about any issues regarding excessive noise at the property. The applicants further advised the Committee that they had been in receipt of threats from a neighbour regarding their planning application but were not proposing to do anything unlawful.

Comments received from Councillor Mills, Ward Councillor, were read out to Members. Councillor Mills expressed concern regarding the application as he believed it would become an overdevelopment of the property and would provide six letting rooms with only one small bathroom and a small shared living space. Moreover, Councillor Mills stated that he believed the property would be let to six individual groups of people which would result in excessive movement to and from the house and would inconvenience neighbours. Finally, Councillor Mills expressed concern regarding parking and vehicular movement in the cul de sac.

Members requested clarification of the number of parking spaces available at the property and were informed that the minimum requirement was three and this had been met. Councillors also sought clarification regarding the number of letting rooms available at the property and it was confirmed that there were four single letting rooms and one double room available with an occupancy level of six people. The Committee also requested further clarification regarding the status of the property as an HMO. The Head of Planning and Enforcement reminded Members that, without planning permission, six people could live at the property lawfully and the extension complied with all planning regulations. If more than six people were to live there in the future, the Council would look more closely at planning and other issues.

Members queried the depth of the extension which was shown as 4 metres on the plans rather than 3.6m and it was suggested that, rather than removing the location plan altogether, authority could be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to correct the dimensions to ensure they matched the applicant's intentions (3.6m). The Committee also asked for further clarification regarding the sizing of the rooms on the first floor and were advised that the rooms met the standards required by planning. Finally, Members sought clarification regarding concerns raised by Councillor Mills relating to increased people movement at the property. Officers advised that, under permitted development rights, six people could occupy the premises, therefore it was comparable to a single dwelling house of the same size. The planning department were considering the rear extension alone rather than the comings and goings of the residents but had added a condition to restrict numbers to six with this in mind. It was believed that no additional harm would be caused.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, seven Members voted in favour with one abstention.

RESOLVED:

·         That the application was approved subject to agreed conditions.

·         That authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to correct the dimensions in the site plan to correspond with the applicant's intentions.