Agenda item

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

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to gain more clarity regarding parking arrangements, vehicular access, the existence of a second HMO in the Close and to investigate the matter of Enabling Powers.

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

Officers introduced the application which sought planning permission for a change of use from a single dwelling to an HMO for six people.  It was considered that the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions and there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character of the area. It was noted that, as indicated on page 11 of the agenda pack, the application was located within an article 4 direction area which removed permitted development rights for the conversion of dwellings to HMOs; hence the requirement for planning permission to be sought. It was reported that no other HMOs were registered in the immediate vicinity of the application site. Members were informed that the site was in a parking management area. The proposal complied with the Council’s policies in terms of siting, room sizes, amenity space and parking spaces. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

A written representation in objection to the application had been received from petitioners. Key concerns highlighted included:

·         It was claimed that 9 Newlyn Close was already operating as an HMO;

·         The proposed HMO at no.3 would increase traffic and parking pressures in the area;

·         Residents were not informed about the ‘Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work’ prior to commencement of the building work;

·         Concerns were raised regarding noise pollution;

·         It was claimed that no.4 Newlyn Close would be surrounded by HMOs if the application were to be approved;

·         Concerns were expressed regarding safeguarding and security given the transient nature of occupants of an HMO.

A further written submission and photos had been received from the agent for this application. Members heard that the applicant wished to reassure residents that the proposed use as a C4 HMO would not negatively impact future occupants or residents in the neighbourhood for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed site would meet the Council’s policies and would not be out of keeping in the area;

2.    There was no evidence to show that traffic would increase; however there would be sufficient onsite parking and cycle storage;

3.    The property had been refurbished to a high standard;

4.    It was unclear whether there was another HMO in the cul-de-sac;

5.    There was a lack of evidence to support the alleged ‘noise pollution’ concerns. However, the applicant had submitted an HMO Management & Supervision Plan and procedures to tackle the issue should it arise;

6.    The Council had assessed that the additional HMO would not exceed the limit for HMO concentration.

The applicant sought to reassure residents that the proposed use as a C4 HMO would be under strict and professional management through a well-established management company. Moreover, the HMO aimed to attract professional tenants such as doctors and nurses working at Hillingdon Hospital.

Ward Councillor Richard Mills had also submitted a statement in objection to the application expressing concerns regarding the over-concentration of HMOs in the area and claiming that the application was in contravention to the Council’s article 4 directive as no.9 was already operating as an HMO,. Councillor Mills was of the view that the proposal would be out of keeping with the street scene and would result in traffic stress in a small close. Furthermore, he stated that the parking proposal was inadequate as the HMO would be unlikely to be shared by related individuals. Councillor Mills also expressed concern that the living area and amenity space in the garden were insufficient for six residents.

Members requested clarification regarding the alleged existence of another HMO in the vicinity of the application site. In accordance with policy as set out in the officer’s report, it was confirmed that officers had referred to Council records on this point – no other licensed HMOs appeared in said records and no planning permission had been granted for another HMO in the Close. Moreover, even if one other HMO were already in operation, Members were informed that this would total two HMOs and would still be considered to comply with policy.

Members expressed further concerns regarding the availability of parking at the application site and the proximity of off street parking to the ground floor bedroom window. It was confirmed that three private parking spaces were available at the site and a small area of planting separated the bedroom window from the parking area. A parking management scheme was in operation Monday – Friday from 09:00 – 17:00 hours and it would not be possible to preclude residents at no.3 from joining the scheme by way of Condition. The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that the only way to prohibit parking on the highway would be by way of a Section 106; however, enabling powers would need to be added to the Section 106 in accordance with Section 16 of the Greater London Council General Powers Act 1974. Members were concerned that three spaces would be insufficient for six occupants; particularly given the current pandemic which had resulted in less people travelling by public transport and more reliance on private vehicles.

The Committee heard that there was potential for a Condition to be imposed restricting the HMO to six occupiers only to minimise parking stress; the three parking spaces provided would then be considered sufficient and the proposal would be policy compliant.

Members requested further clarification regarding the dimensions of the three proposed parking spaces and access to them. Concerns were raised regarding the restricted size of the three spaces and the potential difficulty in accessing them without straddling the pavement in order to do so. It was noted that this would also have safety implications.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding amenity space, it was confirmed that there was no set standard in terms of bedroom sizes; however, there was a large garden at the site. 

Members proposed that the item be deferred to gain more clarity regarding parking arrangements, vehicular access, the existence of a second HMO in the Close and to investigate the matter of Enabling Powers.

The option to defer was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That this application be deferred to gain more clarity regarding parking arrangements, vehicular access, the existence of a second HMO in the Close and to investigate the matter of Enabling Powers.