Agenda item

Change of use of a Class C3 dwellinghouse to a Class C4 Small Scale HMO with associated refuse and bike storage.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use of a Class C3 dwellinghouse to a Class C4 Small Scale HMO with associated refuse and bike storage.

Officers introduced the application which included associated parking and cycle storage. No external changes to the building were proposed. The application was recommended for refusal for four reasons – the proposed layout and size of the bedrooms were more akin to a large HMO which could accommodate up to ten occupants; the proposal would give rise to undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents; the proposed development would fail to provide adequate parking; and the dwelling offered inadequate internal communal space and kitchen area for occupants.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Concerns highlighted included:

·       Morello Avenue was a quiet residential area not suited to an HMO;

·       A tree in the lead petitioner’s garden had been felled by the applicant against his wishes – this did not bode well in terms of how the HMO would be run; and

·       Due to the size of the bedrooms, the proposed HMO had the potential to house considerably more than five people.

With regard to the felling of the tree, it was agreed that officers would be requested to explore this matter further outside of the Committee.

The agent for the application had submitted a written representation which was read out to the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·       Planning officers were thanked for their help and support to date;

·       Parking provision had been raised as a concern although officers had advised the agent to amend the plans to include 2 rather than 3 spaces;

·       Being akin to a large HMO was purely an assumption – there was no evidence to support this;

·       The applicant and agent were willing to be flexible with the design and would be happy to amend the plans to incorporate only living space downstairs and bedrooms upstairs;

·       The only reason planning permission had been sought was due to Hillingdon’s Article 4 Direction which did not prevent the development but required planning permission to be obtained first from the Council;

·       Article 4 was to remove permitted development rights relating to the change of use of a dwelling house into an HMO. The application did not meet any of the criteria for refusal of an HMO – the overcrowding of HMOs did not apply as there were none on Morello Avenue;

·       Objections were based on the assumption that 6 or more people would live in the HMO although the application was for a 5 person HMO only;

·       Stated refusal reasons were based on taking away the rights of people with lower socioeconomic standing – the application sought to offer more than the minimum space standards required at an affordable price;

·        The agent was happy to accept a condition limiting the HMO to 5 people only;

·       If the application were to be refused, the applicant and agent would appeal the decision and consider legal action.

Ward Councillor Gohil was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the petitioners. Councillor Gohil noted that 12 Morello Avenue was a lovely house in a lovely road with lovely families living there. An HMO which could potentially house up to 10 people was an awful idea. Councillor Gohil noted that the Council’s ambition was to build nice family homes and an HMO did not fit into that category. The neighbours had been going through hell with work being carried out at all hours at no.12 and with the uncertainty of what would happen in relation to the application. An additional reason for refusal or strengthening of reason for refusal number 2 was proposed in relation to planning policy which stated that developments should create spaces that were ‘safe, inclusive and accessible which promote health and wellbeing.” It was agreed that officers would refer to this policy so it appeared in the report.

In response to questions from Members, it was confirmed that there were currently no HMOs in the area. Policy allowed for up to 20% of properties to be HMOs but they had to comply with all planning standards.

Members sought clarification as to the feasibility of controlling the number of future occupants by way of conditions. It was confirmed that it would not be possible for the local authority to police this going forward. Officers would be obliged to confirm it in writing prior to any inspection of the premises.

In response to further questions from the Committee, Members heard that the London Ambulance Service had not been consulted on the application. They were informed that the proposed bedrooms were bigger than a standard double room and could therefore accommodate more than one person.

No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.