Agenda item

Application for determination:

Erection of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer window to facilitate the use of the dwelling as a 6 bedroom HMO.

The Planning Development Manager presented the report detailing an application for the erection of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer window to facilitate the use of the dwelling as a 6-bedroom HMO.

A local resident addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

He objected to the application on the following grounds:

-       The area already suffered from noise pollution; the granting of the application would add to this;

-       Local residents objected to the application;

-       The dwelling would be densely populated; - Whilst the application was for six persons, it would not be confined to six people as couples would live there;

-       The granting of the application would exacerbate anti-social behaviour that had been combatted recently;

-       Parking issues;

-       There was continuous traffic on Salisbury Road, the granting of the application would further contribute to this;

-       The proposed dwelling was inadequate for six occupants.

Councillor Patel addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

He objected to the application on the following grounds:

- His ward was the most densely populated in the City of Gloucester, the granting of the application would set a dangerous precedent and would add to this issue;

- There were parking issues already. Should the application receive consent, this issue would become worse;

- There was a reference to Conduit Street from the Highways Authority in the report, when the application was for Salisbury Road;

- There was an issue with fly-tipping within the area, and the addition of an extra five persons to the street would contribute to the worsening of this issue;

-Anti-social behavioural issues.

The Planning Development Manager responded to Members’ questions concerning what would happen if more than six people moved into the HMO, the percentage of HMOs allowed in an area, how many people could live in the property and why the application was before committee when it benefitted from permitted development rights as follows:

- The application had not already received permitted development approval. However, it benefitted from permitted development rights.

- If more than six persons lived in the property, it would then require planning permission as it would be regarded as a large HMO, which required permission. - The applicant would require a specific licence, separate from planning permission, that deals with aspects such as cooking and beds. Six couples could not fit into the property owing to its size.

- There was to be a maximum of 10% of intensified properties (large HMOs or buildings converted into flats) in an area according to policy. However, this was not a relevant policy for the application before the committee, as the application was for a small HMO.

- It was possible that eight persons could fit within the property based on the size of the bedrooms, but there would be licensing issues that arose from that. Further, that was not a planning consideration as the application before the committee was for six persons.

- He was unsure why the applicant applied for planning permission as it benefitted from permitted development rights.

- The agent was advised that the conversion could be completed under permitted development. However, the applicant chose not to follow that advice. - It was before the committee and not a delegated decision because two local Ward Councillors called it in.

The Highways Officer responded to a question from a Member concerning the reference to Conduit Street in the report as follows:

- The reference to Conduit Street was a clerical error.

Members’ Debate

The Vice-Chair stated that he sympathised with the concerns the local resident raised in his speech. However, he added that he believed there were no planning reasons for refusal and that there were licensing means that could control activity to ensure that more than six persons did not occupy the dwelling.

Councillor Bhaimia stated that his main worry was that anti-social behaviour and flytipping was already common in the area and that granting an application to make the area more densely populated would contribute further to this. He said that there was already no capacity for vehicles to park in the area and that the area was not as pleasant now as it used to be.

Councillor D.Brown stated that he was perplexed that the application had made it to the Committee stage. He said that he also had sympathy with the concerns raised by the local resident but that he saw no reason for refusal, particularly as the proposed conversion benefitted from permitted development rights.

The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded the officer’s recommendation:

RESOLVED that: - planning permission is granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.