Agenda item

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft an additional reason for refusal in relation to noise and disturbance.

Single storey rear extension and conversion of a 5-bed, 6-person HMO to a 6-bed, 9-person HMO

Officers introduced the application noting that the proposed conversion would result in a change in use class from C4 to sui generis. Officers highlighted a number of issues that had arisen with the development including: that the size and scale of the extension would have an adverse impact on the adjoining occupier, the only proposed communal space was entirely enclosed with no windows or natural light, and that parking provision did not comply with the Council’s standards.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and written representations from the lead petitioner were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

• Petitioners stated concerns around increased levels of disruption to the neighbourhood as a result of the expansion of houses in multiple occupation;
• Neighbours would inevitably suffer from increases in noise and extra comings and goings associated with such large, and often transient populations living next door;
• Specific concerns were raised around parking pressures and the impact that the development would have on further exacerbating the problem. It was also noted that since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, residents had been increasing their level of outdoor exercise, there had been concerns around deteriorating road safety and congestion cause by the development limiting residents’ confidence in exercising safely outdoors;
• It was stressed that large HMOs in terraced houses were not cohesive to the community and it was suggested that HMOs should be reserved for detached properties;
• Petitioners highlighted safety concerns around short-term residents in HMOs;

Members were supportive of the recommendations in the officer’s report. The Committee were minded to include an additional reason for refusal pertaining to noise and disturbance. Officers noted that the increase from six residents to nine was not initially deemed to warrant a refusal reason based upon noise and disturbance issues; Members highlighted that, when accounting for the additional residents and their visitors, increased levels of noise and disturbance were inevitable. Officers went on to note that previously, a similar application proposing the expansion of a HMO was refused on noise grounds and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. Officers were supportive of incorporating the additional reason for refusal.

Members raised concerns that the four metre depth on the boundary with the adjoining semi-detached property would, due to its north facing orientation, overshadow the private amenity space of the adjoining occupier. Further to this, and in response to comments made by the petitioners, Members suggested that perhaps the Council should be evaluating whether HMOs in terraced and semi-detached properties, or in areas of family housing should be limited by policy, this would alleviate some of the common issues seen around larger HMOs, particularly with regard to noise and disturbance. It was also noted that criteria three of the Council’s HMO policy DMH5 stated that there should be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

With regard to parking arrangements, it was noted that HMOs of up to six occupants should provide 0.5 parking spaces per occupant. Where a HMO has nine occupants the Council requires a transport appraisal, no such appraisal had been submitted for this application; therefore officers referred to the UDP and Local Plan policies, taking into account the property’s low PTAL, and concluded that the development, should it be approved, should provide five parking spaces for its nine residents.

Members queried whether the property had breached Council policy on retaining at least 25% of front garden landscaping. Officers informed Members that there was some landscaping present to the front of the property and that HMOs of up to six people retain their permitted development rights; the developers could therefore hard surface the frontage of the property without planning permission, assuming the hard surfacing was permeable. It was noted that if Members were minded to approve the application, conditions could be imposed to ensure appropriate landscaping at the front of the property.

The officer’s recommendation, with the additional reason for refusal, was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused;

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft an additional reason for refusal in relation to noise and disturbance.