Agenda item

Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 front rooflights, single storey rear extension and conversion to 5 x studio self-contained flats and 1 x 1-bed self-contained flat

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application, which was recommended for refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

A petitioner objecting to the application addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The property appeared to be currently vacant, so changing to an HMO and filling it with multiple new people would be a big change.

·         There were concerns over the maintenance of the property, with gardens/fences overgrown and in a state of disrepair. It appeared that steps to rectify this were only taken after submission of the application.

·         Parking provision would be insufficient for what was a site with minimal parking space already.

·         The flats are too small and would result in poor standard of living for occupants.

·         Water pressure in the location is poor already, and the proposed development could exacerbate this problem.

·         The number of residents who signed the petition highlighted the depth of feeling towards this proposal; none who were spoken to were in favour.

·         It was requested that the application be refused.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         Four people were currently living in the property. 1 more occupant/room would have a minimal effect on the area.

·         Maintenance at the property had been undertaken prior to submission of the application.

·         Existing permission allowed the applicant to convert the property to a licensed HMO, but this proposal reduced the number of occupants for hygiene/safety concerns due to the pandemic.

·         3^rd party companies could provide on-street parking surveys but the Council had not requested this.

·         It was acknowledged that the flats were under Hillingdon’s size requirements, but a review of similar properties in the Borough showed most did not abide by this requirement.

·         It was requested that the application be approved.

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent/applicant advised that the application had been submitted prior to being aware of the requirements for room size and numbers within a property. Exits from the property in the event of a fire were sufficient for all rooms via direct external doors and staircases.

Ward Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee by way of written statement. Key points highlighted included:

·         The ambition to convert a semidetached house into 6 single unit flats was too overbearing for what was a small cul de sac, and was not in keeping with the existing street scene and character of the road.

·         The parking provision was inadequate for 6 individual units that would likely result in multiple cars, thus causing further challenges in a road that was unsuitable for a significant development of this size.

·         The proposals would create unfit living accommodation for future occupiers given the small size of each unit along with lack of sunlight, ventilation and amenity space.

·         For these reasons the application should be refused.

The Planning Service Manager set out the rules for HMOs, and confirmed that ordinarily, conversion of a dwelling to an HMO for up to six persons would not require planning permission. However, there was an Article 4 restriction on this particular site, which meant that for an HMO for between three to six people, planning permission was required. Therefore, a six person HMO was not a fallback position that the Committee needed to consider.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal, for the reasons set out in the report. The recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.