Agenda item

Conversion of single dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 7-bed House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. Planning permission was sought for the conversion of single dwelling to a seven-bed house in multiple occupation.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The Chairman read into the record a written submission from the petitioner, which stated:

“My questions are:

1.    If the only change to present use of 105 Sweetcroft Lane is to add another bedroom, why does there need to be a change of status to HMO?

2.    At present 105 Sweetcroft Lane is a home for people with learning disabilities and, is as the paperwork states, a valuable asset to the community. My concern is, that once the status is changed to HMO, this could change and the dwelling used for other reasons. What guarantees can be put in place to ensure that this does not occur?

3.    What guarantees do we have, that the number of occupants will not exceed 7? The report states that the number of occupants could be 14, but a limit of 10 is in place at present. Even an increase of four occupants is a substantial  increase and fourteen occupants is over a 100% increase.”

The applicant addressed the Committee and explained that the property was being used as home for people with learning disabilities. There were currently six residents living in the property and they had been living there for a year and a half. In order to increase from six to seven residents, there needed to be an application for the change of use. This is why the application for a HMO had been put forward. There was a high demand from the Social Services Department from the London Borough of Hillingdon.

In response to Member questions, the applicant clarified that there were no members of staff resident on site and in terms of staff movement there was usually one core staff member on shift but usually approximately three to four movements a day.

The Chairman confirmed that the application was for an additional bedroom but the matter had been slightly complicated by the wording of condition three where it allowed the occupation of the building to go up to 10.  There was also a concern that the number of support staff attending would increase if the occupation was to increase. Officers indicated there would be not be an issue in relation to this, save for the reason in the addendum to be amended to reflect this.

Members were mindful that this application was an easy way to change the use to a student HMO. However, after being made aware of the current use and operation, Members were minded to approve the application subject to limiting the occupancy to a maximum of seven. This was due to the possible impact on residential amenity. Members considered strengthening the condition to a HMO for supported living, but were advised that it would be difficult to formulate a form of wording that would be supported by a planning inspector. 

The officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to confirm the final wording of condition three restricting the occupancy, was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed when put to a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to confirm the wording of condition three restricting the occupancy.