Agenda item

Ward

Ashford Common

Proposal

Proposed roof extension with ridge height increase and 2 no. side-facing dormers to facilitate a change of use from a single dwelling (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy for 7 occupants ((HMO) – Sui Generis)

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the Recommendation Section of the report.

Description:

Proposed roof extension with ridge height increase and 2 no. side-facing dormers to facilitate a change of use from a single dwelling (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy for 7 occupants (HMO) – Sui Generis.

Additional Information:

One late letter of objection has been received. The issues raised are already covered in the report.

Correction to para 7.16:

‘Although as noted above, the proposal would increase the overall height of the building to 6.3m 6.2m and increase the eaves to 3.8ms, the side elevation is set in 1.5m from the boundary’.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, David Gurwith spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Well thought out scheme that will be regulated by a management team.

2.    Ample Parking

3.    Electric Charging Points

4.    Property is in a sustainable location

5.    Provides affordable housing for the vulnerable in the Borough

6.    All bedrooms have their own en-suite

7.    Energy efficient

8.    Oversized kitchen and large communal living area

9.    Extensive garden and communal gym facilities

10.Developer could make this a 6 bedroom HMO with no parking or communal living space under permitted development

11.This application ticks every box and has been approved by the Council’s officers

12.In the surrounding boroughs there are approximately 11,000 illegal HMOs which identify that there is a need for this sort of residence

13.Anything that comes to this committee in respect of HMOs faces rejection

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Rutherford spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Need to consider whether this application aligns with Planning Policies EN1 EN11 and HO1

2.    Identified need for family homes in the Borough and this application removed a unit of family housing from the market

3.    This fails to provide the right kind of housing in the right place

4.    A 7-person HMO is likely to generate more cars than a family residence

5.    Only 3 off-road parking spaces so overspill parking is likely, increasing congestion, reducing highway safety and harming neighbour amenity

6.    7 unrelated adults sharing one kitchen, lounge and garden does not deliver the high standard of amenity required

7.    Does not offer a good quality of life especially in such a constrained shared environment

8.    No noise assessment has been submitted.

9.    The cumulative effects of MHOs across Ashford are more bins, cars and transient occupancy.

10.This application will set a precedent

11.6 residents could live in the property under permitted development but the additional one resident can materially change the impact in terms of parking, amenity and neighbourhood pressure.

Following advice from the Council’s legal representative at the Committee, Councillor Rutherford declared that she would not take part in the debate nor vote on the application submitted.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

1.   On-street parking pressures would increase

2.   This is an example of the developer ‘maxing out’ a development

3.    Many people in the Borough can not afford flats so HMOs are their only option

4.   Only one large kitchen that may not meet the needs of 7 residents

5.   An attractive development on a wide road

6.   Not overbearing and would not be a detriment to the area

7.   Long walk from train station so residents would have to use cars

The Committee voted on the motion as follows:

For – 8

Against – 1

Abstain – 4

Councillor Rutherford did not vote.

Decision:

Approved subject to conditions set out in the report.