Agenda item

Refused, due to reasons to be set out in the Minutes.

Councillor Connolly left the meeting, having declared a predetermination in respect of the following 2 items.

The Principal Planning Officer submitted a report to the Committee which sought approval for a change of use from dwellinghouse to HMO for 13 occupants. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which contained additional objections from neighbours and a councillor, and letters of support from a third party. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site was currently vacant and had become overgrown. Should the application be approved, the concentration of HMOs in a 50m radius would be 4.5%, well below the 10% limit. All of the proposed bedrooms exceeded minimum space requirements and the facilities provided within the building also exceeded the requirements of the Council’s HiMO SPD. Whilst no additional parking would be provided, the location was considered sustainable, situated close to public transport links and shopping facilities. It was proposed that the lightwells be increased in size to allow for more light to enter the basement bedrooms and it was not considered that this would have a negative impact on the conservation area. The development would bring an unused building back into use.

Councillor Russell spoke against the application and commented that the application was an overdevelopment. Cllr Russell expressed concern around parking and security and stated that she would prefer to see the building converted to 3 or 4 flats. Concern was raised that some landlords were not good and rubbish could be left on the street. Concern was also raised with how save the building would be during COVID.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor Russell left the room for the remainder of the item.

Jane Birch, Member of Trinity Ward and Semilong Neighbourhood Forum expressed concern around 13 unrelated households all living in close proximity as well as potential antisocial behaviour. Jane Birch stated that she would also prefer to see several flats instead of an HMO and the current scheme was overdevelopment. Concern was raised with the impact of the building on the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, and the lack of parking provision. It was further raised that the hotel adjacent had large levels of anti-social behaviour and this use could add to this. Concern was raised about 13 unrelated people sharing facilities.

Pat Dooley, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the property would be completed to a very high standard which would make residents want to stay. He noted that conversion to flats would necessitate parking provision which was unfeasible on this site. The property was too large to be used as a family home and the concentration of existing HMOs was well below the Council’s limit of 10% in a 50m radius. It was advised that the concern over how the site would be run was not a planning matter and there was no evidence this one would be run poorly. The site is high standard with large rooms, and it was hoped people would stay – the aim was for professional occupiers.

In response to questions Patrick Dooley advised that Committee that the HiMO use was considered the most appropriate as you do not need a vehicle. It was further advised that whilst en-suite bathrooms were desirable in HMOs, they were not a requirement, and that the opinion that high end residents would not want to live here was a personal opinion.

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer advised that only the current scheme could be assessed, and it could not be advised if flats would be acceptable in this location.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED against the officer recommendation on the grounds of overdevelopment resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and parking concerns.