Agenda item

Description:

This application sought the erection of part single storey, part two storey side extension and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing garage, outbuildings and rear extension and conversion of existing dwelling into a House of Multiple Occupation for 7 persons.

This application had been called into Committee for determination by Councillor Thomson on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with Policies EN1, CC3, HO5 and guidance contained in the SPD for the Design on New Residential Development and Householder Extensions.

Additional Information:

One additional letter has been received (including photos) making the following points in relation to the Planning Committee report:

• Impact upon the character and appearance of the area
• Un-neighbourly
• Impact on amenity
• Unacceptable on street parking and safety
• Planning permission is required for 7 persons because this may have an impact on character
• Non-compliance with policy EN1 in not making a positive contribution to the street; unsatisfactory relationship with adjoining properties and inappropriate/insufficient off street parking
• Precedent

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Elaine Serpant spoke against the proposed development and raised the following key points:

• Concern about HMO
• Out of character, change to character of property
• Unneighbourly
• Impact on amenity
• EN1 requires a positive contribution to the street scene
• On street parking concerns causing danger
• Precedent

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Ranjit Sekhon spoke for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

·         EN1 – the design of this development is similar to that already approved

·         CC3 parking has been reviewed by the Highways Authority

·         Policy H01 not a new development, but an existing development.

·         No complaints from Environmental Health or the Police

·         Applicant is a registered landlord, has grade A HMO licence

·         Landlord complies with all regulations

·         Can operate HMO for 6 people under permitted development, this is 1 more

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Ward Cllr Thompson spoke and raised the following key points:

·         Has received a lot of objections

·         Will change the character of the building

·         Planning condition could be imposed limiting the use to 7 residents

·         Planning permission had already been granted for the extensions

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Large representation against application
• Change to a building that changes the character
• Would be restricted to 7 therefore smaller change
• EN1(a) issue – high standard of design
• Layout – communal space is small but meets HMO standards
• 6 rooms show double beds therefore possibly 13/14 people.
• Parking – 3 cars in minimal space
• Heavily congested road, cars over pavements and across footpath
• Properties never intended as HMOs
• HO1 referred to but was called in on HO5
• Environmental Health made no comment at this stage, but could object to room sizes at the licensing stage – not a planning consideration
• Communal kitchen/diner is similarly small
• Potential problems for locality associated with the use of the property as an HMO
• Is there a difference between the existing approval and the HMO in terms of built form?
• New application with 7 separate dwellings
• What is the car parking for 7 flats?
• Parking difficult after 6pm
• Parking layout doesn’t work
• Bulk has been approved, additional development too much
• Pushing boundaries on what’s already there with additional pressure on local residents
• Is front door adjacent to parking?
• Parking space appears to be an inadequate size
• Looks unsafe – means of escape inadequate
• Realistically there would be more than 7 people living there - conditions can’t be enforced
• This is about the impact of 1 additional occupant
• Is there adequate bin storage?
• It will have an adverse impact on surrounding residents
• Kitchen and communal area inadequate for 7 people

Decision:

The recommendation was overturned and REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed use of the site as an HMO for 7 residents would result in a development which would have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding residential area, contrary to policy EN1(a) of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.

The proposed on-site parking is inadequate to serve the proposed development which would result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality, contrary to policy CC3 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies DPD, 2009.