Agenda item

Change of Use from single-family (Class C3) dwelling to 7 bedsit HMO (Sui Generis).

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the reports for agenda items 11 and 12, (Application ref. 53723/APP/2021/1141 and ref. 53723/APP/2021/1140), which sought permission for the change of use from a single-family dwelling (Use Class C3) to 7 bedroom House in Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis). 

The addendum was highlighted, which set out the applicant’s submission of significantly changed plans. As the revised plans would require additional consultation and evaluation, and were submitted very late, officers advised that they would not be accepted, and that Members should base their decisions on the plans as included within the meeting papers.

Officers considered that the proposed developments would fail to provide a satisfactory residential environment for the future occupants of the HMO, given the lack of a communal living area and that the communal kitchen area was substandard in size and had no outlook or natural lighting. In addition, it was considered that the proposals would result in an overintensive use of the site to the detriment of the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance. For these reasons, the applications were recommended for refusal.

By way of written submission, the agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee, making the following points:

·         The proposed internal accommodation would be finished to a high quality and by virtue of the proposed layout and room sizes all future occupants would benefit from a good standard of living.

·         Regarding the concerns raised regarding the residential environment, that a minor amendment to the proposed schemed comprising the following is suggested:

o   a new window within the south west facing side elevation, which could be obscure glazed if necessary, and

o   the change of a proposed ground floor bedroom and en-suite to a communal living room and storage space which would reduce the scheme to a 6 bedroom HMO with a maximum of seven tenants.

·         The side window now proposed would not affect living conditions at the neighbouring property no. 11 as it would only overlook the flank elevation and side passageway of the adjacent dwelling and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut if necessary. The window would provide an adequate outlook and natural daylight to tenants within the kitchen of the HMO.

·         The minor modification would also include the change of a rear bedroom to a proposed living room which would also be of an adequate size for future occupants with a good outlook that provides direct access to the rear garden, whilst the storage space would provide a useful area for tenants.

·         Regarding potential noise and disturbance, whilst the size of the bedrooms is acknowledged, the maximum number of tenants within the HMO would be seven. Consequently, the HMO would not be likely to generate any more noise and disturbance than from activities from family occupation, given that the existing five bedroom property has the potential to accommodate up to eight individuals.

·         A house of this size could be occupied by a household of adults with different activity patterns or include several children of various ages, and as such the movement patterns of a large family would not be vastly different from the residents within a proposed HMO.

·         A condition restricting the number of occupants to seven would be entirely enforceable. Moreover, the HMO would be licensed which would also include restricting the number of tenants. The applicant would be a responsible landlady who will employ the services of a managing agent to ensure that the property is maintained to a high standard not exceeding the permitted maximum number of tenants.

By way of written submission, Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor, making the following points:

·         Both planning applications have been subject of a number of letters of objection, including a petition of residents, should be refused for the reasons as detailed within the report.

·         Regarding the impact of an HMO with a capacity of 14 adults would have on immediate neighbours, with no adequate communal areas, it would be necessary for the occupants to use the outside space for meeting and dining and recreation, resulting in noise and disturbance.

·         The Officer’s report suggests that parking in the road would not be impacted by the potential HMO having a capacity of 14 adults due to the fact that a Section 106 Agreement would prohibit the occupiers being able to apply for residential parking permits.  However, this is unlikely to be easily enforceable as there have been instances in this road where permits have been misused, and cars parked overnight without permits.

Councillor Janet Duncan addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor, making the following points:

·         The points raised by Councillor Sweeting were accurate. The road is often subject to unauthorised parking, and consequently parking was often stressed.

·         The proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment out of character with what was a family road, and would result in significant noise and disturbance.

Members supported the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as outlined. The recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.