Agenda item

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation which was read out for the attention of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The report provided information that differed from the experiences of local residents.
• The current property had been extended significantly, increasing its capacity beyond the stated four bedrooms.
• The proposed new two-bedroom house would create overdevelopment and dominate the views of neighbouring homes.
• The new house had the potential to be converted into a four-bedroom property, leading to a large HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) with up to 20 persons.
• The description of the family home in the report was considered misleading as the current house accommodated many people.
• A large HMO would have serious consequences for residents, including parking issues, noise, litter, and disruption.
• The assessments made by officers in the report were based on an underestimate of the current and proposed building capacities.
• The Committee was requested to refuse the application or conduct a full site visit.

The agent for the application had also submitted a written statement which was read out for the consideration of the voting Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The importance of maintaining the integrity and character of the area was highlighted.?
• It was alleged that No.13 was not, and would not be, used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) but as a C3 dwellinghouse by a single family. ?
• Evidence, including a Shorthold Assured Tenancy Agreement, photographs, and a visit by Enforcement Officers on 11th February 2025, confirmed that the property remained a C3 dwellinghouse. ?
• The applicant's brother planned to move into No.13, while the applicant and his family would occupy the new dwelling. ?
• No. 13's location at the end of a cul-de-sac allowed the new dwelling to be a discrete addition, maintaining visual harmony. ?
• The new dwelling's scale, design, materials, and detailing had been chosen to complement the surrounding architecture. ?
• The design aimed to enhance the area's character and integrate seamlessly with the surroundings. ?
• Paddington Planning requested that the application be approved, emphasising the development's positive contribution to the neighbourhood. ?

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was in attendance and addressed Members in support of petitioners. Key points raised included:

• The report claimed that the proposed attached 2-bedroom property would be relatively modest, with sufficient roadside capacity to accommodate vehicles from the existing property.
• It stated that the proposal would not result in a reduction in residential amenity, a significant increase in activity or people movement, and the existing property was a family 4-bed home rented to a single family.
• However, a visit by the Council's enforcement team had found significant discrepancies, revealing that the property was being used as a third generous HMO with the potential of having 8, not 4, bedrooms.
• The proposed new 2-bedroom property could easily move into a four-bedroom property over three floors, potentially merging into one large property with the existing one, resulting in 12 bedrooms with a minimum capacity of 24 people.
• Specific planning issues were highlighted, including the first-floor bedroom window of the proposed new dwelling being only 7.5 meters away from the flanked wall at no.11, which was in direct contravention to the Council's minimum 15-metre requirement.
• The proposed window would directly look into the private rear garden of no.11, resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy.
• The application was requested to be refused due to inaccuracies in the interpretation of the capacity of both buildings and for legitimate planning reasons.

Members sought further clarification as to whether the existing property had been found to be operating as an HMO.

In response, officers advised Members that the planning application purported that the existing dwelling was a single-family dwelling, and the report had been written on that basis. Enforcement complaints alleging a change of use to an HMO had been received in May 2024 by private sector housing, and the planning enforcement team had only become aware of the situation during the processing of the planning application.

It was confirmed that a site inspection had been carried out by the Planning Enforcement Officer on 11 February 2025, post-publication of the Committee agenda report. The Planning Enforcement Officer had noted that the property could potentially have 8 bedrooms, but further investigation was required, and no conclusion had been reached.

The Committee heard that officers believed that, whether the property was an HMO or a single-family dwelling, did not materially affect the recommendation that planning permission should be granted.

Councillors sought clarity on the distance between the 1st floor window and the existing dwelling. It was confirmed that the distance was around 7.5 metres, similar to the existing dwelling, and it was noted that the HDASS document with a 15-metre requirement was no longer in use. Members recommended the inclusion of a condition to obscure the window for residents' peace of mind.

Councillors enquired about the number of people living in the property and its extension history. It was stated that the number of residents was not material to the planning consideration. Members heard that the property had a single-story side extension and a first-floor rear extension.

Councillors discussed the proposed new dwelling and the planning conditions to prevent its change of use to a small HMO and the addition of extensions without express planning permission. Officers explained that the planning enforcement team was investigating the use of no.13 and would address any breaches of planning control.

Members sought further clarification regarding photographic evidence of people living in the property and prior notice of visits. The ongoing Planning Enforcement investigation was highlighted, and Councillors were advised that the number of people living in the existing property was not material to the planning decision.

Councillors sought advice on the linking of the two properties internally. It was noted that merging two properties without planning permission was ordinarily possible, but converting them into a large HMO would require planning permission.

The Committee Members thanked officers for their comprehensive report and it was noted that the planning enforcement investigation could take a considerable length of time to conclude.

Officers noted the potential risk of a non-determination appeal if the application were to be deferred for a site visit. However, Councillors felt a site visit was important to enable them to fully assess the potential overdevelopment of the site, street parking issues and the impact on the character of the area.

The recommendation to defer the item to allow for a site visit was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.