Issue - meetings

Application for Determination: -  

Change of use to 8 bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO (sui generis)) including demolition of the existing garage and timber carport, erection of proposed single storey rear extension and associated car parking, cycle parking and amenity space.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report, detailing an application for a change of use to 8 bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO (sui generis)) including demolition of the existing garage and timber carport, erection of proposed single-storey rear extension and associated car parking, cycle parking and amenity space.

Councillor Hilton addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of a local resident in opposition to the application.

The Democratic Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of an agent of Pedersen Smith Architects in favour of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to members questions as follows:

-       If there are up to Six people living together as a family there can be permitted development to go from a C3 to a C4 property, which would be classed as a small HMO. Planning application is required when there would be more than Six people living at a property.

-       The agent looked at formal permissions when working out the number of intensified properties in the area. The properties with under six residents that may have changed under permitted development would not have been included in their figure.

The Business Transformation Manager responded to members questions as follows: 

-       A requirement for inspections of the property would not be covered by planning legislation.

-       If members wanted more specific detail about the number of HMO’s and intensified properties in the area, then it may be appropriate to defer the application.

Members Debate

-       A member stated that the suggestion by the Chair to defer the application was a sound one.

-       The Vice-Chair said that he was in ‘two minds’ about whether to refuse the application.

-       A member noted that he would prefer to defer the application to get more specific information about the number of intensified properties within the area.

The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded a motion to defer the application.

RESOLVED that:- The application be deferred until the next Planning Committee for further information to be provided to ensure that intensified properties represent less than 10% of households within a 100-metre radius of the application property.