Decision details

24/0776/F

Area Planning Manager (West)gave an illustrative presentation, recommending that planning permission for the proposal was granted, as outlined in the Officer’s report. 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed the size of the proposal was in line with the Core Strategy.  The kitchen was not classed as a habitable room therefore lack direct light was not a planning ground for refusal, further, as it was a domestic, not industrial kitchen, there was no planning requirement for a vent or flu.  The lack of communal space was acceptable as the rooms were all within acceptable space standards for such a proposal.  At 0.8 meters the access way to the property and rear garden was deemed acceptable.  Cycle storage was conditioned including security and design.  As the area was not within a CPZ a parking survey was not undertaken as parking restrictions could not be conditioned.

The Local Planning Committee was addressed by two residents who objected to the proposal on the grounds of increased traffic and parking pressure to the area.  Increased refuse, noise, and disruption, both through construction phase and habitation, as six individual adults not one cohesive family.  Primarily elderly community who will be anxious due to unknow occupants, and not the right location for an HMO.

The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed to Members that the applicant would also be required to apply for an HMO license which would require a management plan may have a different view on aspects of the proposal and fire regulation requirements.

Members moved to determination and expressed concern at the lack of ventilation to the kitchen, in which residents may have to congregate, as it was also the main entrance area.  The possible impact on the quality of life for elderly neighbours and the lack of a CPZ for the area was of concern.

That the concerns at the possible impact on neighbours was understood, this was not a material planning matter and noted that the majority of the issues of concern raised would be controlled under the HMO licensing process.

The Chair put the proposal to recommend planning approval to the vote with –

3 Members in favour

1 Member against

0 Members abstaining

Resolved –

That full planning permission be granted for the construction of a single storey rear extension. Change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3) to a 6-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4).

That consent was subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2, to be detailed in the notice of determination.

That the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report and its addendums, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.